VINDICATION 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERIAN FORM 

OF 

^HURCH-GOVERNMENT, 

AS 

ROFESSED IN THE STANDARDS 

OF THE 

C&tirci) of ^cotlanD ; 

In Reply to 
THE ANIMADVERSIONS. 

OF 

Mellrs. In\es, Ewing, Ballentine, Glass, &'c. among the 
Modem, and of Goodwin, Lockier, Cotton, &c* 
among the Ancient Independents. 

In a Series of Letters , adclrejfed to Mr. Innes. 

With an APPENDIX, containing Remarks on Mr. Haldane's 
View of Social Worfiiip. 

• By JOHN BROWN, 

MINISTER O? THE GOSPEL, GAR T MORE. 



«* Where every thing muft undergo tiifcuffion," [i. e. by the people, as is the cafe in ln- 
cepericent churches) <c fome may be in danger of thinkir.g that they have laivs to make, 
" inftead of laivs to obey. A few of the moft active fpirit ar.d readicft elocution will become 
** the real movers and man .gcrs in every bufinefs. Thofe, in fhort, who have molt need of 
* f reftraint, are in danger of being led to fet it at defiance, while the peaceful, and thofe to 
*' whom the government is committed nominally! iirz terrified ar.d chained down by the tur- 
**" bid&tice of the reft." 

Eiving on A8s xv. 

" Let it be recollected, it is fyjlems, not the character either of individuals or of particular 
** focieties, the merits cf which we are here canvaifing." 

Innes* 

fi Por.deribus libra'a fid:.'''' 



EDINBURGH: 

PRINTED BY H. IN G LIS. 

-Sold by Ogle & Aikman, Guthrie & Tait v W. White : 
and M. Oglf, Glasgow. 

1805. 

t 



INTRODUCTION. 



The following Letters were originally intended as 
a Reply to Mr. Innes only. On farther reflection, 
however, it appeared to be proper, not to reftridt 
thefe inquiries to a review of that writer's fenti- 
ments, but to confider alfo what had been (aid by 
the more ancient and able advocates for Inde- 
pendency. In our researches after truth, it mould 
alwavs be our concern to know what is faid, and 
not merely who fays it*, and certainly Independents 
cannot object, if, in examining what has been 
advanced by their prefent champions, we likewife 
confider the more learned and ingenious arguments 
of their enlightened predeceflbrs. 

It is requefted to be remarked, that it is the 
principles only, and not the praclices of Prefcyterians 
that are here defended. The advocate for Pref- 
bytery is certainly no niore bound to vindicate the 
latter, in order to eftablifh the former, than the 
advocate for Chriftianity is bound to prove that the 
conduct of Chriftians is blamelefs and praife- worthy, 
in order to {hew that Chriftianity is divine. It is 
i?refbytery alone as exhibited in the fcriptures for 
a 2 



iv 



Introduction. 



which we here contend, and it is on this ground 
alone that we can impartially review and compare 
it with Independency. 

Let it be further confidered, that if the errors 
which appear in the condudt of Preibyterians, with 
regard to government, are better known than thofe 
of Independents, it is owing, in a great meafure, 
to the fuperior publicity of their courts. While 
none but members are allowed to attend the meet- 
ings of the latter, and while the ftri&eft fecrecy 
marks their proceedings in general, none are com- 
monly prohibited from hearing the deliberations of 
the former. If the miftakes of Prefbyterians then 
are more generally known than thofe of Inde- 
pendents, it arifes from a circumftance which has 
ever been admitted to be a very important excellence 
in civil courts ; namely, that their proceedings are 
ufually conducted in the prefence and hearing of 
all, even though not connected with their focieties, 
while the tranfa&ions of Independents are carried 
on in private, and are carefully concealed from the 
infpe&ion of the world. 

That inftances of very lawlefs oppreflion have 
occurred among our Tabernacle Independents in 
Scotland, even during the (hort time that they 
have already exifted, is attempted to be proved, 
Letter II. Thefe inftances are taken either from 
the writings of thofe who reprefent themfelves as 
aggrieved, and whofe ftatement has never been 
refuted by their opponents, or from the writings 
of thofe who were guilty of the oppreffion, and 
have acknowledged their fault. And, perhaps, 
had their courts been as open to the public as 



Introduction. 



v 



thofe of Prefbyterians, we fhould have heard of 
a (till greater number of ads of tyranny and in- 
juftice. 

To allow the office-bearers to decide on any 
point, when the members of their congregations 
have not been previoufly confulted, has always 
been affirmed by former Independents to be a dif- 
play of ecclefiaftical defpotifm in Prefbyterians. 
In the Letter however to which we have referred, 
it is endeavoured to be proved, that, in many 
inftances, Mr. Ewing contends for this very 
power ; and confequently, at leaft on their acknow- 
ledged principles, the conftitution of his church, 
to a certain extent, muft be viewed as a fpiritual 
defpotifm. 

It is attempted, moreover, to be demonftrated in 
thefe Letters, that the fcheme of thefe writers, by 
rendering every congregation in the church of 
Chrift independent of the reft, exhibits fuch a 
view of his kingdom as would be prefented of the 
civil and political world, were it broken into 
as many independent governments as there were 
towns or villages on the face of the earth, and their 
governors were obliged uniformly to confult the 
inhabitants before they could perform any a£t of 
authority. 

That the author, in every inftance, mould ac- 
curately have ftated the fentiments of Independents, 
is what he by no means pretends. As each of their 
congregations is independent of the reft, it is pof- 
fible that there may be as many creeds and confti- 
tutions among them as there are churches on the 
earth. But to think of reprefenting accurately the 
a 3 



VI 



Introduction. 



fentiments of all of them, amidft this pojfiblev ariety, 
would certainly be a vain and ridiculous idea, efpe- 
cially as mo ft of them account it a fin to write and 
publifh thefe creeds to the world. He is confcious 
however that he has not wilfully, in any inftance, 
misftated their views \ and if thofe, whofe opinions 
are here examined, can point out any cafe in which 
he has not fairly exhibited them, he will mod 
readily correct it. 

Let it not be faid, that the reafonings in thefe 
Letters cannot be admitted to be conclufive, becaufe 
many Independents do not, as is here aflerted, allow 
their members a right to vote upon every queftion. 
It is of little importance to differ about words. All 
Independents (Mr. Ewing excepted) afk the judg- 
ment and confent of their members upon every 
matter, before the office-bearers can pronounce a 
decifion ; and if fo, the arguments which are here 
adduced, are equally conclufive as upon the former 
fuppofition. 

Let it be underftood farther, that the arguments 
advanced will not be confidered as overturned though 
a number of miftakes fhould be pointed out in 
feparate and detached obfervations, unlefs the body 
of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthrown. 
It will much lefs be confidered as at all affe&ed if 
encountered only by wit and humour, a weapon of 
which fome advocates for Independency feem to be 
peculiarly fond. It is from conviftion alone that 
the author of thefe Letters has publifhed his fenti- 
ments, and when an oppofite conviction is pro- 
duced, by difpaffionate, and able, and fcriptural 
reafoning, he will inftantly renounce them. He 



Introduction. 



vii 



has no wifli that Prefbytery fhould be retained any 
farther than it can be fupported by fcripture, and 
the moment that it is proved that it cannot fo be 
fupported, he will be happy to fee that it is rejected 
by the world. 

It is of little importance for the public to know, 
that thefe Letters were written amidfl many avo- 
cations, and at confiderable intervals. It is mentioned 
only as an apology for any inaccuracies of ftyle, or 
repetitions of fentiment, which may occur in the 
perufal of them. This, however, is the only 
indulgence for which he pleads. He afks none in 
behalf of the argument. He wiflies it fully and 
impartially to be examined, and will endeavour 
candidly to confider the objections which are offered 
to his reafonings, if ftated in the fpirit of Chriftian 
meeknefs, and not with that virulence which {hews 
only how ftrongly an individual fmarts under a fenfe 
of inconfiftency* or how keenly he is devoted to the 
purpofes of a party. 

The author originally intended to examine like- 
wife the argument for Separation from the Church 
of Scotland, drawn from what have been called its 
corruptions : but of this, his prefent avocations will 
not admit. He (hall probably however be induced 
to complete his defign, as foon as he can command 
the leifure and time which it mult neceflarily re- 
quire. And, till fome fuller treatife be publifhed, 
he begs leave to recommend to the perufal of his 
readers, Fergufon (of Kilwinning) on Independency 
and Schifm ; and a valuable pamphlet by a late 
eminent Minifter, entitled, Thoughts on Modern 
Divifions. 



viii Introduction. 

The publication of thde iheets has been delayed 
for fome time, that the Second Appendix, containing 
a Review of Mr. Haldane's book on Social Worfliip, 
as far as relates to the fubjeft of Government, 
might accompany the Letters. 



ERRATA. 



Except in p. 53. and Letter IX. Dr. Watty not Dr. Ifaac Watts, 
was intended to be quoted. 

P. 236. 1. 25. for mcv.hrs, read the tubers* 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction. 

Letter L Propriety of the conduct of Mr. Tnnes and 
other Independents confidered, p. i — 5. Dr. Stuart's 
view of the Church of Scotland as Antichrift, refuted, 
5, 6. Note. The examination of Prefbytery by Mr. Innes 
extremely partial, 9, 10. Plan of difcuffion ftated, 10. 

Letter II. On the Nature Degree of 'the Power claimed 
by Prejbyter'ians and Independents. Mifreprefentations 
of Independents, ir, 12. The degree of power exer- 
cifed by them, proved to be more than that of advice, 
13, &c. and 14 — 19. Note. Inconfiftency between 
the fentiments of Mr. Innes and Mr. Ewing, 21 — 26. 
Unreasonable or imperious authority not claimed by 
Prefbyterians, 28. The fcriptural terms expreffing the 
power of church-rulers, 32 — 37. and the relation of 
members confidered, 37 — 40. Sum of the preceding 
remarks, 40, £sfc. 

Letter III. Of the Perfons entitled to Authority in the 
Church. Arguments to fhew that all the members can- 
not have equal power in matters of government, 46, &c. 
Power of ruling not indifcriminate, proved, from the 
names given in fcripture to rulers, 49 — 53 — to the 
members, 54 — 58 ; and from the duties of the mem- 
bers to the rulers, 58 — 60. 

Letter IV. Samefubjecl. The meaning of Matth. xvi. 19. 
confidered, 61 — 71. Binding and loofing explained, 
64 — 69 ; that it implies an exerafe of authoritative 
judicial power, and is committed to minifters only, 
proved, 69 — 71. 

Letter V. Same fubjetl. The highefl: acts of govern- 
ment and difcipline (hewn to be performed by the 
elders exclufively. Admiffion of members, 71 — 7 
Ordination of office-bearers, necefiary, 76 — 79 ; com- 
mitted to paftors alone, 80 — 83. Power of difcipline 
veiled in the office-bearers only, 84 — 86. 



x Contents. 

Letter VI. Argument for Independency from Matth. 
xviii. 15, 16, 17, as ftated by Mr, Innes, 86 — 88; 
anfwered, from the meaning of the word church, 
88 — 90, which is fliown to fignify, in this paffage 
particularly, the elders and office-bearers ; — from the 
allufion to the Jewifh courts, in which the government 
was not vefted in all who attended them, but in parti- 
cular rulers, 92 — ico ; and — from the common lan- 
guage of fcripture on this fubjeft, 101 — 106. 

Letter VII. Argument for Independency from 1 Cor. v. 
examined, and proved to be inconclusive, 107 — 118. 
The tendency of the Independent plan to encourage 
a fchifmatic fpirit, even in matters of trivial importance^ 
confidered, 112 — 117. Note. 

Letter VIII. Argument from Acts xv. difcufTed, and 
fhewn to be not only irrelevant, but favourable to 
Prefbytery, 118 — 127. 

Appendix to Letter VIII. The conftitution of the 
primitive church proved to have refembled Pre&ytery 
more than Independency, from the teftimony of Cy- 
prian, 130 — 134 — Clemens Romanus, 134 — Jerome, 
136 — Ignatius, 137. Cyprian, whom Independents 
rank among their defenders, further, fhewn to oppofe 
their fentiments, 139 — 148. 

Letter IX. On the Order of Ruling Elders. This order 
acknowledged by Watts, Cotton, Goodwin, EsV. 149. 
The authority of it proved, from the language of fcrip- 
ture, as to plurality of elders, 1 50 ; from the extent of 
infpe&ion and fuperintendence required of them, 151 — 
their duties ftated by Dr. Owen, 152 — 155 ; from 
the propriety of checking the ambition of paftors, 
156 — 158; from the qualifications of many of the 
members, 159 — 162. 

Letter X. Scriptural Authority of this Order* Rom. xii. 
6, 7, 8. explained, 162 — 172. The ruling mentioned, 
an office in the church, 164 — does not refer to gifts, 165, 



Contents. 



xi 



aor to a family, 166 — nor to an infpired prefident, 
as M*Knight afferts, 169. Meaning of irgowpi, 171. 
I Cor. xii. 28. confidered, 172 — 176. Opinion of 
Chryfoftom on this text, 173. 
Letter XI. Same fubjetl. 1 Tim. v, 17. coniidered : 
acknowledged by Dr. Owen to be decifive on the 
point, 177, and by Whitaker, ib. Objections exa- 
mined, 179 — 186. Sentiments of the primitive fathers, 
188— 191. 

Letter XLI. On Courts of Review, Difference of 
opinion among Independents, 192. Affociation and 
fubordination of courts contended for by Hooker, 
Cotton, the \V dlminfter Independents, and Goodwin, 
193 — 196. Strong language of Dr. Owen to this 
purpofe, 197 — 200. Authoritative rule, and not ad- 
vice merely, implied in their flatements, 202 — 204. 
Sentiments of Independents in Holland, 204, 205. Note. 

Letter XIII. Same fubjed. Views of Independents 
and Prefbyterians as ftated by Baillie and Fergufon, 
206 — 209, and of Prefbytery by Hoornbeek, ib* 
Note. Congregations not to be independent of each 
other, proved, from the fcripture-reprefentation of 
the unity of the church, 21 1 — 222. The non-exiftence 
of an univerfal church, no objection, 215. Analogy, 
on this point, between political and eccleliaftical 
government confidered and defended, 217. This unity 
belongs to the univerfal church, and not to a particular 
congregation only, 22 1. 

Letter XIV. Same fubjetl. Independency more fa- 
vourable to error and tyranny than Preftytery, 222 to 
232. Ordination by minijlers alone, a fymptom of Prefby- 
terian principles, even among Independents, 232. A 
court of review neceffary to judge heretical or immoral 
pallors, 235. Independency kfa favourable than Pref- 
bytery to an enlightened and candid adminiftration of 
juftice, 236 — 242. 



xii Contents. 

Letter XV. SamefubjeB. Scripture-authority of courts of 
review. Their exiflence among the Jews, 242 — among 
Chriflians, 244, particularly at Jerufalem, proved, from 
the number of Chriflians there, 245 — 267. The 
difperfion at the death of Stephen confidered, 253 to 
258. Miniiiers of different congregations at Jerufalem, 
fhewn,26i. Teftimonyof Eufebius,/£. Objection from 
Ezra, anfwered, 263. Note. Weekly communion not 
revealed, 264 — 266. Note. 

Letter XVI. Same fubjecl. Plurality of congregations 
in Jerufalem argued, from the number of miniflers employed 
there, 268 ; from the diverfity of languages fpoken, 
269. Mr. Ewing's objection confidered, 272. The term 
brethren applied to miniflers in the New Teftament, 
and probably fo to be underftood in Ads xv. 276. 
Great argument of Mr. Ewing and other Independents 
from A&s xxi. 22. mown to be inconclusive, 278 — 287. 

Letter XVII. Same fubje8. Independency not fupported 
by A6ls xv. The form of this alfembly — difference of 
opinion on this point, 289 \ that the members of it 
were office-bearers, and a reference was made to them, 
293 ; that they delivered an authoritative decillon, 
294 — 297 ; that this alTembly was not infpired, proved, 
298 — 312. 

Letter XVIil. Same fubjeEt. Mr. Innes's reafons for 
giving up Acts xv. as an argument for Prefbytery, con- 
fidered and anfwered, 313 — 323. Conclufion from this 
reafoning, 324. Sentiments of the primitive church, 
325 — from Cyprian, 331. Tedimony of Eufebius, 332. 
Conclufion, 333. 

Appendix I. On the Jewifh Synagogues and Sanhedrin, 
334- 

Appendix II. Remarks on a View of Social Worfhip, Ijjc. 
by James Alexander Haldane, 345. 



LETTERS 



TO 

Mr. I N N E S. 



LETTER I. 

SIR, 

It Is with the utmoft relu&ance that I addrefs you on 
the fubjecl of your late publication. Senfible of the 
evPs which have often refulted to the caufe of Chrift 
from religious controverfies, and from controverfies efpe- 
cially of inferior importance, I am forry that an oppor- 
tunity mould again be afforded to the enemies of religion 
to triumph at the increafing animofities and diffenfions 
of her friends. Confcious alfo of the necefiity of mutual 
forbearance, to promote among Chriftians that univerfal 
charity which is " the bond of perfectnefs," I cannot 
behold without the deepeft regret, charges the raoft 
awful and momentous, exhibited by one body of Chrif- 
tians againft another, though equally attached to the 
fame blefTed caufe ; charges which, from their peculiar 
chara&er, are not lefs deftru&ive of thofe pleafures and 
advantages which flow from the cultivation of private 
intercourfe, than totally incompatible with public fel- 
lowfhip. 

Extraordinary as was the manner in which you were 
led to change your views of the Eftablifhment *, and 

* See Letter III. p. 2j. in which you admit that it was in 
confequence of an inquiry begun upon your being offered another 
Situation in your prefent connection, that you finally determined 

A 



£ Letter I. 

flrong as may have been your convictions of the propriety 
of that meafure, it appeared to me particularly unbe- 
coming in you, or any of your brethren, to difcover fuch 
keennefs in your oppofition to that Eflablifhment as you 
have lately manifefted. It was the avowed defign of a 
celebrated fociety *, of which many of you are members, 
and which may juftly be confidered as the parent of your 
churches, to diffeminate the gofpel where the means of 
inftruct.ion were not enjoyed, or, in your apprehenfion, 
not enjoyed in purity, and not to form a party for Inde- 
pendents, by dividing the congregations of faithful mini- 
fters, either among the DifTenters or in the Eflablifh- 
ment f . You ought certainly to have confidered alfo f 

to leave the Church of Scotland. Whether fuch alfo was the 
fecurity of your brother Mr. Ballentine, before he renounced his 
Prefbyterian connection, I do not pretend to fay. 1 confider it 
however as furprifmg, that for many years before he had re- 
nounced his profeflion as a Prefbyterian, or even his (hidies, in the 
view of becoming a Prefbyterian minifter, he mould tell us, that 
" he had clearly feen from the word of God, that churches of 
Cl Chrift fhouid confift only of con-verted, perfons, and that their 
" government fhouid be what is called congregational" or Inde- 
pendent, and yet have remained a Prefbyterian. See p. ip. of his 
Obfervations. 

* That for propagating the gofpel at home. 

f That fuch was the original profeflion of this fociety, is 
evident from the regulations which they delivered to their 
itinerant preachers and catechifts, and which, fo far as I know, 
they have never yet publicly retracted. In the 2d and 3d of thefe, 
it is declared, that " thefe itinerants are not to mew a preference 
44 to any denomination of Christians, either eflahlifled or diffent- 
" ingy but exhort the people to attend wherever the gofpel is 
" preached in purity. And to endeavour to ftrengthen the hands 
u of all faithful minifters of Jefus Chrift, of whatever denomina- 
u tion." See Appendix to Haldane's Addrefs. If fuch liberal 
fentiments however were the genuine fentimenis of this fociety, and 
have uniformly been adhered to by its itinerants and catechifts, 
how can it be explained, that in every inftance where they fufr- 
ceeded in procuring a congregation, that congregation has invariably 



Letter I. 



3 



that the more formidable v the charges which you bring 
forward againft it are, the more (Inking is your own 
inconfiflency, in granting the higher! and moft valued 
privileges of your church to perfons while remaining in 
this very fociety, if you were fatisfied as to the rectitude 
of their principles and practice *. 

become an Independent church ? And efpecially, fmce you, and 
MeiTrs. Haldane and Ewing, are fo zealous members and patrons of 
this fociety, 1 mould be glad to know upon what principle you can 
vindicate your prefent conduct, in writing with fuch vehemence 
againft faithful minifters both efiablijbed and diflenting, while, as 
connected with this fociety, you are ftill folemnly declared to be 
publicly alTociated, " to ftrengthen their hands, and encourage 
" their people to ivait upon their labours, and to enjoin all to (hew 
" no greater partiality for your/elves than for them //" 

* Reprehenfible as is the practice of mixed communion, as granted 
occasionally to the members of other religious focieties by fome 
of our DhTenters, it feems to be doubly fo upon the principles of 
your churches. You confider the Church of Scotland in particular, 
as wiil inftantly be proved, as an image of Antichrift, if not 
Antichrift itfeif. But what pleafure can you experience, when 
you fit down to participate of your feait of love with men whom 
you regard as fupporters of this adverfary of the blefTed Saviour ? 
or what fatisfatlion can they feel, when they reflect that they are 
joining in this delightful exercife with perfons who, whatever 
attachment they profefs, afcribe to them, in another view, this 
dreadful character ? If I am not mifmformed too, it has not been 
uncommon among you to admit thofe to occafional communion, 
whom afterwards, when they applied for dated memberfhip with 
the very fame views, you would* not receive. But where, Sir, is 
your warrant either from fcripture or reafon, for denying the 
latter, which does not introduce to ordinances more folemn, or 
privileges more important, to perfons to whom you would not 
fcruple to grant the former ? Yet while you have imparted at 
firft this privilege with the utmofl cheerfulnefs to thofe pious 
perfons who occafionally applied for it, you have been known in 
many inftances, if they perfifted in their applications, to remon- 
ftrate with them on what you denominated the inconfiftency of their 
conduct, and moft afliduoufly to infift that they would become 
ftated members. Does an act however, which, in your opinion, 
A 2 



4 Letter I. 

It 5s undeniable however, that fuch charges have been 
advanced by you againft it. You yourfelf inlinuat€ 
(p. 1 16.), in terms the mod decided, that it is no longer 
entitled to the character of a church of Chrtft. And 
your brother Mr. Ewing, in a late very extraordinary 
paper refpe&ing Vows (fee Miffionary Magazine for 
January 1804, p. 6.), after quoting Rev. xiii. 16, 17. 
" And he caufed all, both fmall and great, rich and 
" poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right 
u hand, or in their foreheads : and that no man might 
u buy or fell, fave he that had the mark, or the name 
" of the bead, or the number of his name" — introduces, 
in page 36. a note from the annotations of the Geneva 
tranflators, explanatory of the mark of the beaft ; and 
then fubjoins, " How happy mould we be that we are 
" happily delivered from fo many of the abufes mention- 
" ed above ; and that, through the lenity of the govern- 
" ment under which we live, any man is at liberty to 
" rejecl: them all! No clafs of men ought to be more 
" feniible of the value of our civil conflitution than 

may be performed without inconfiftency for eight or ten times, be- 
come inconfiftent if more frequently repeated? And does not the 
folicitude which you difcover, and the importunity which you em- 
ploy, to prevail with thofe who are occafional communicants to be- 
come dated members, difclofe a defign rather of converting this 
folemn and invaluable privilege into a mean of increafing your avn 
fcieties, than of promoting the mutual love of Chriftians? And, in 
ihort, according to the principles of your different focieties, every 
individual, who is admitted as a member, is entitled as a virtual, 
though not a nominal ruler, to judge and vote in' the affairs of the 
church. If then, according to your uniform practice, you allow- a 
member of the Church of England, or a member from our Eftablifh- 
ment or the Prefbyterian Diflenters, when you are fatisfied at once 
with his faith and piety, to eat with you occafionally the 
facrament of the fnpper, upon what grounds, I demand, couid 
you refufe this peribn, even while he remained an £pifcopalian ) 
or Prefbyterian, a right alfo to adminifler occafionally in your Inde- 
pendent congregations as an ecclefiaftical ruler? 



Letter I. £ 

* Chriftians, who cannot in confidence hold communion 
" with a national church. In thefe times, and in this 
" country, we may refufe to be fealed with Antichrifl? s 
" mark, and be neverthelefs fuffered to live among men." 
Here it is plain, that he confiders even the ftrongeft of 
thefe names, which have hitherto been viewed as appro- 
priated to that church which is called in fcripture, 
" The mother of harlots, and abominations of the 
" earth," as applicable alfo to our national church. 
She too, it feems, in his opinion, is the beajl mentioned in 
this pafTage ; and confequently, according to the defcrip- 
tion of this Antichrift, muft fit in the place of God, and 
exalt herfelf above all which is called God : and of her alfo 
it may be affirmed (however contradictory to fact), that 
flie has made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath 
of her fornications, and has deceived them who dwell 
upon the earth by the lying miracles which (he has pre- 
tended to perform !!! How ftrange indeed, that perfons 
who are fuch fticklers for purity of communion, mould 
receive to occafionai' fellowfhip the followers of this beajl, 
and fupporters of this Antichrift — -the members, in fhort, 
of this church, which cannot be confidered as a church of 
Chrifl ! How ftill more aftonifhing is it, that men, who 
glory fo much in their candour and charity, mould apply 
to our Efiabliihment the titles of a church, not one of 
the awful chara&eri flics of which, whether as already 
ftated, or more fully defcribed in the facred volume, 
either can be afcribed to her in themfdves, or were ever 
hitherto afcribed to her in the fame extent, even by her 
moil inveterate enemies *. See an admirable refutation 

* I rmift here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving the 
Eftabliihment, in 1777 publiihed a moft violent inventive aguinft 
it, in the form of a fermon. In it he attempts to trace a 
refemblance between our church and Antichrift, which is repre- 
fen ted in the Revelation, as a woman fitting upon a foarlet- 
coloured beaft, with feven heads and ten horns. It is remarkable 

A3 



6 



Letter I. 



of this paper on Vows, and a dete&ion of fome radical 
and important errors on which the fcheme of thefe gen- 

however, that while he feletts certain circumftances in which he 
imagines there is a fimilarity, he omits others far more important 
and diftinctive, in which even his ingenuity could not difcover 
the flighted degree of coincidence. It is evident alfo, that to 
point out a refemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he 
has fucceeded, will not warrant the application of this name to 
the Eftablifhment. Some things which are very good, refemble 
others which are bad, in a number of circumftances ; and yet it 
cannot be inferred from this, that they are evil. A good man 
may refemble a bad man, in being fupported by the power and 
wealth of others, as he here fays that the Church of Scotland 
refembles Antichrift ; and yet wl cannot infer from this, that he 
is an unworthy character. Nay, we are told in this fame book, 
chap. xxi. 24. that when the pureft (late of the church on earth 
ihall come, " the kings of the earth," who are faid, in the 
defcription of Antichrift which he quotes, to give its power and 
flrength to the beaft, " mall bring their glory and honour into the 
u church." But fince the Doctor confiders it as one part of the 
fimilarity of our church to Antichrift, that her minifters, while as 
refponfible for their doctrine and practice as thofe of any Dif- 
fenters, are fecured, as long as they difcharge their duty, in their 
maintenance by Government, what will he fay of the millennial 
church, into which the kings of the earth are to bring their 
glory and honour, to fupport and promote it ? Since he reprefents 
it likewife as an evidence of our fimilarity to the mother of harlots, 
that we have a written confejpon, exhibiting our view of the mean- 
ing of the fcriptures, and that our cree^ will not agree with his 
view of thefe fcriptures, does it not follow from this, that as 
there is not at prefent a church in Scotland with which he can 
join in communion, every Baptift, and Independent, and Prefby- 
terian diiTenting, as well as ejiabliftjed congregation, muft fo far be 
viewed by him as a member of Antichrift ? In fine, as he 
mentions it as another point of refemblance, that the two 
witneffes of God prophefy in her clothed in fackcloth, it appears 
neceffarily to refult from it, that as we are informed in Rev. xi. 3. 
that thefe witneflTes were to prophefy for 1 260 prophetic days, or 
according to him for that number of years, the Church of 
Scotland, if we attend to the firft period of its exiftence as a 



Letter I. 



7 



tlemen in a great meafure is founded, in the Miffionary 
Magazine for March 1804*. 

You have, however, produced evidence which appears 
to you at leaft, demonftrative of the truth of your charges, 
and which confequently juftifies your feparation from the 
eftablifhed church. Of this evidence you invite a fair 
difcuffion. It will not therefore, I prefume, be difagree- 
able to you to attend to fome reflections which, on a 
perufal of your Letters, occurred to a member of the 
Eftablifhment, and which, on review, ftill difpofe him 
to object, to the cogency of your reafoning, for the necef- 
fity or propriety of the ftep which you have taken. The 
arguments which you adduce to eftablifh your pofition 
are of two kinds ; thofe which, in your opinion, prove 
the conjlltution of the Church of Scotland to be anti- 
fcriptural, and thofe which relate to the improprieties ex- 
hibited in its adminift ration. In the following pages it is- 
propofed to confider thefe arguments in their order, with 
the degree of force which they appear to polfefs. 

Confcious of the fallacy of the common practice of 
arguing againft a fcheme from the abufe which may have 
been made of it, or the errors and inconfiftencies which 
may have appeared in the conduct of thofe who have 
held it, you juftly exprefs, in language the mod pointed, 
your difapprobation of fuch reafoning. " It is not," 

diftin£t fociety, mult, in the Doctor's view, have ftill a profpe£l 
of exiftence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him 
and his Independent brethren in their attempts to overthrow it. 
^ * It may moreover be remarked, that fince it is fpecified in 
this paflage as a fign of Antichrift, even according to Mr. Ewing, 
that fne allows none to live among men who do not receive her 
mark or number, it is impoflible for him, without directly oppof- 
ing his own exprejjions, as well as the explicit teftimony of the 
facred oracles, to apply this opprobrious appellation to our church, 
which permits Independents to live unmolefled in their re- 
ligious privileges. 



s 



Letter I. 



you fay (p. 9.), " the character of individuals, but 
" the general afpect and tendency of any particular 
" fyftem, by which our opinion of it ought to be regu- 
" lated. If it be founded on fcriptural principles, 

" ungodly men being profejfsdly attached to it will not 
" make it worfe \ and if not, the moil eminent examples 
" of holinefs among its votaries will not be able to fane-- 
" tion it." And again, in p. 105. " Let it be recol- 
" lected, it is fyjlems, not the characters either of indi- 
" viduals or of particular focieties, the merits of which 
" we are here canvafling. Thefe are only implicated fo 
" far as they are found countenancing a fyftem, of which 
" there is fatisfactory evidence that it is not agreeable 
" to the word of God." Than this, indeed, nothing 
can be more rational ; for were we to reject a principle or 
fyftem on account of the errors, and even immoralities, of 
many who hold it, we mould not only fet aride Pre/by tery,. 
but Independeney and Chriftianity, and even reafon itfclf. 
You rightly therefore begin with the conftitution of our 
church, and on this ground we are willing moft readily 
to meet you, allured that if it can be proved to be agree- 
able to fciipture, it will be difficult for you to eftabli.1i 
the propriety of feparating from its communion. 

In reviewing then your remarks upon the confutation of * 
the Church of Scotland, I am happy to obferve that you 
are pleafed to object only to its form of government, 
confcious, I prefume, that the views which it profeffes of 
evangelical truth, in its Confefiion and Catechifms, are 
no lefs confiftent than your own with the word of God. 
Its adminift ration by Prefbytery alone is the object of 
your cenfure, and againft this you declaim as one abun- 
dant fource of the evils which are to be found in it. 
With this momentous confequence however, even though 
thefe evils mould exift, I hope it will afterwards appear 
that Prefbytery is not chargeable ; and that of all thofe 
forms of government which we know, Prefoy tery is the beft 



Letter. I. 



9 



fitted to preferve purity of dc&rine and discipline. At 
prefent it is fufHcient to mention, that corruptions, not 
only in government but in fentiment, are not peculiar to 
Prefbytery, but are to be found in an equal, if not in a 
greater degree among Independents themfelves. No 
where have the opinions of Socinians, and Arians, and 
Armenians, and Univerfalifts, more generally prevailed 
than among the Independents in England *. As no 
argument then, founded upon the exiflence of fuch evils 
among Independents, would be admitted by you to be 
conelufive againft Independency, unlefs it could be prov- 
ed that it was favourable to the introduction of them ; fo 
no argument, I contend, can be adduced from fuch evils, 
if they exift in the Eftablifhment, againft its Prefbyterian 
government, unlefs it can be evinced that that mode of 
government is the fource and caufe of the introduction of 
fuch errors. But this you have never even attempted to 
demonftrate. 

I am furprifed, befides, that in your examination of 
Prefbytery, you did not confider its various parts fepa- 
rately, as detailed in our ftandards, with the particular 
evidence which is exhibited for each. The great body 
of that evidence you have very flightly noticed, and part 
of it you have not even noticed at all. This, however, 
would undoubtedly have been the raoft fatisfa&ory 
method of refuting the errors, if errors they are, which 
are maintained on this fubject by our national church, 
and it would certainly have impreffed your readers with 
a more favourable idea of your fidelity and candour. It 
would alfo, perhaps, by no means have been prejudicial 

* That many, alfo, of the Prefbyterians in England have 
embraced thefe errors cannot be denied. It is well known how- 
ever, that thefe Prefbyterians have no courts of review, or do not 
regard them ; and that, while they profefs to be Prefbyterians, 
from their total inattention to the peculiarities of that fyflem, they 
are more worthy, in a certain view, of the name of Independents, 



10 



Letter I. 



to you In this important particular, if, after flating your 
arguments in favour of Independency, you had been 
pleafed likewife to mention what had been faid in anfwer 
to them a hundred times by former Prefbyterians. But 
this you have thought proper completely to fupprefs ; and 
inftead of putting your readers, agreeably to yoUr pro- 
mife (p. 3.), in poffeffion of the arguments on both fides 
of the queftion, while you have illuftrated, at leaft as fully 
as you knew them, the arguments of Independents, have 
totally concealed the replies of their opponents. 

You have thought proper to confider at cnce y and in a 
very few pages, the different peculiarities of the Prefby- 
terian fyftem ; and fome parts of that fyftem you have 
not even mentioned. As this plan, however, neither ap- 
pears to be a faithful exhibition of truth, nor fitted for 
clear and accurate difcufiiorz, it is propofed in what 
follows, to confider 

In the 1 ft place, The opinions of Prefbyterians and 
Independents with regard to the nature and extent of 
that power which fhould be granted to church-rulers. 

2dly, To whom this power is given by the fcriptures 
in a particular congregation ; whether to the members 
of the church at large — to the paftor alone — or to the 
parlor and lay-elders united. 

And in the 3d place, If every particular congregation 
Is fo to be governed, whether its paftor and elders are, 
by fcripture-authority, required to fubmit to the review 
and controul of the paftors and elders of feveral congre* 
gations, united in a Prefbytery, Synod, or AfTembly, 



L » 3 
LETTER II. 

SIR, 

The Jirjl point, I apprehend, in which you differ from 
Prefbyterians, is the nature of that power which they 
grant to their rulers ; and here, in words at leaft, the 
difference Is important. Upon this topic Independents 
have often declaimed with the utmoil keennefs, and from 
this fource they have derived their warmeft invectives 
againft the Eftablifhment. Upon this topic, too, you 
confiderably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very 
fhocking colours, the baneful confequences with which 
the authority of Prefbytery is neceflarily attended. 

Before however I attend to your arguments, I would 
briefly advert to a mifreprefentation which has frequently 
been made by Independents, of the claims of Prefbyte- 
rians with regard to the nature,and kind of their authority. 
Often has it been fa id, that the power for which they 
contend, amounts to nothing lefs than a legislative au- 
thority, and invefts them with a right to ena& at plea- 
fure whatever laws they wifh to eflablifh in the church of 
Chrift *. Than this, however, nothing undoubtedly cant 
be more remote from their fentiments. They, as well as 
Independents, profefs to admit that Jefus is the only Head 
of his church ; that thofe laws alone which he has reveal- 
ed, bind the confeiences and conduct of his fubjectsf ; 

* See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 175. near the middle, where he 
arhrms that a legiflative power is afTumed by Prefbyterians. 

f In proof of this, we may refer to the words of our Confeflion, 
chap. xxxi. feci, iii. where it is exprefsly declared, " that it 
6( belongeth to Synods and Councils minifterially" i. e. merely as 
the fervants of Jefus, and accountable to him, " to determine 
" controverfies of faith and cafes of confeience" — to the words of 
that very AfiTembly which framed this Confeflion, and collected 
from the fcriptures our form of church-government ; " We fay 
m again, that this power of minifters is no where any other than 
4i ininifterial) and that it is not to be exercifed any where at their 



12 



Letter II. 



and that the higheft honour to which ecclefiaftical rulers 
can now afpire, is to explain what the doctrine of the 
church is, with regard to the true meaning of the laws of 
Chrift, and authoritatively to enforce among thofe of 
her communion the execution of his laws. In matters 
indeed of inferior moment, which regard fimply the con- 
venience, or external order and regularity of the church, 
and for which no explicit directions are given in the 
fcriptures, Prefbyterians allow that Chrift has intrufted 

*' own wills, but according to his direllion," (p. 9. of their Anfwers 
to the Seven Independents) — to the words of the London minifters, 
■who, while they contend moft ftrenuoufly for the divine right of 
Prefbytery, declare explicitly, p, 45. that the power which is to 
be committed to its rulers is to be " only fubordinate and mini- 
" fterial" — and to the treatifes of Gillefpie, in his Aaron's Rod 
Bloflbming, p. 175.; of Wood againfl Lockier, p. 276. &c. ; and 
of Hall on Church-government, p. 59.; with many ether Prefby- 
terians, who, though they aflert moft decidedly the right of the 
rulers to ecclefiaftical power, very pointedly ftate that it is not 
to be legiflative. Above all, we may refer to that very (hiking 
fact in favour of Prefbytery, that many of the moft zealous of 
our ancient Prefbyterians, in the laft awful perfecutions which 
were witneiTed in thefe lands, bled and died in fupport of this 
truth, that Chrift alone is invefted with a legift alive power in his 
church. How ftrange then, whatever may be the praBices of 
Prefbyterians, that Independents fhould deny this to be at leaft a 
part of their principles, as much as of their own, that the power 
of church-officers is only to be fubordinate, not legiilative ! And 
how extraordinary, that the writer before quoted, when fpeaking 
folely of the Prefbyterian fyfte?n, Ihould boldly affirm, in the face 
of fuch teftimonies, that it authorizes its church-officers to make, 
as well as interpret and execute its laws ! If fuch be the view of 
the principles of Prefbyterians which is fo obnoxious to Indepen- 
dents, it is no lefs rejected, in profeflion and fyftem, by Prefby- 
terians than by them. And, at the fame time, it is a view of the 
principles of Prefbytery which I feel obliged - to declare that I 
have never found in the writings of Prefbyterians, and have met 
with only amidft the felf-created theories and accufations of 
Independents. 



Letter II. 

a power with thofe who rule in his church, to appoint 
fuch regulations as may be requifite for the general ends 
of edification and utility. But this is no more than 
Independents themfelves have uniformly claimed * ; while 
it is an inconteftable fact, that, in every inftance in which 
legi/Jative power is difclaimed by Independents, it is 
univerfally and explicitly difclaimed by Prefbyterians. 

But admitting that the power with which rulers 
are invefted is not legislative, but fimply of the kind 
which has been now ftated, what is the degree of it which 
they are warranted to exercife ? Are they entitled, 
as Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decifions 
to thofe whom they govern, as matters of opinion ? or have 
they a right to announce them, as Prefbyterians maintain, 
as authoritative determinations, and require their cheerful 
and univerfal obedience ? In the former of thefe fchemes 
you profefs your belief, and reprobate the latter, as 
fubfervient merely to promote the purpofes of tyranny 
and opprefiion. That inftances of tyranny may indeed 
be found in the conduct of Prefbyterians, I readily 
grant ; but that fuch inftances are authorized by their 
fyftem, I pofitively deny. Nothing can be more con- 
trary to the genius at leaft of this form of government ; 
while it is a notorious fact, that it is not only not ex- 
cluded by Independency itfelf, but feems not even to 
be equally precluded by this plan of adminiftration. 
' Many inftances might be adduced, of mod imperious 
decifions by Independent rulers ; decifiotis, too, which, 
when once palled, were for ever final ; and decifions pro- 
! nounced by the very men who, while they exclaim 
j againft Prefbyterians for exercifing even inferior autho- 
I ritative power, profefs to claim no more than a right to 
| deliver their opinion and advice to thofe whom they go- 

* Thus the tabernacle-churches in Scotland require their 
members to ftand in fmging. 

B 



24 Letter II. 

vern. Even in one of your fifter-churches, an inftance 
of this kind the mod aftonifhing and unaccountable, if 
we are to believe the narrative of thofe who were 
aggrieved, has already occurred ; and their narrative has 
never yet been invalidated. In this cafe, furely, it was 
more than an advice or opinion which was delivered : for 
when certain members refufed to concur with the paftor 
in a moft infignificant matter, fo far at leaft as it related to 
him, a decilion of cenfure was paffed, not only in a tone 
as authoritative as is ever afTumed by any Prefbytery, 
but in a manner as fummary and rigorous as that of any 
Roman Conclave *. In Independency, moreover, which, 

* See a narrative publifiied by feven members of your church 
at Perth, who were excommunicated by Mr Little, for refufing 
to concur with the reft of the members in adopting the vernon 
of the Pfalms of David compofed by Br. Watts, The account 
which is here given of the conduct, of that gentleman, confidering 
him as an Independent, is indeed aftonifhing, and though at- 
tempted to be fet afide by him in the reply which he has publish- 
ed, feems yet to be unanfwered. He contents himfelf, in general 
(p. 7.), with " denying the view which they give of his words 
" and actions, in relation to their feparation." And though they 
have produced charges againft him the mod pre c if e and fpecific, and 
cftablimed them by facts the moft pointed and particular, he fatif- 
fies himfelf, and imagines that he will fatisfy the worid, by [imply 
faying, " that theirs is a moft diftorted and unjuft reprefentation, 
" defigned to bring the whole tabernacle-difcipline to contempt." 
It muft be obvious however, that fuch vague affirmations, unfub- 
flantiated by proof, cannot be fuftained as a fatisfactory anfwer 
to accufations fo ferious, and attempted at leaft to be fup- 
ported by references to facts and incidents the moft precifs and 
determinate. His reafons, moreover, for declining " to enter into 
*' particulars, and for long (llcnce" after the publication of their 
narrative (compare p. 12. with p. 6. 7.), muft ftrike every candid 
and impartial mind as very extraordinary, when urged by a man 
as an excufe for not vindicating himfelf from accufations certainly 
the moft particular and important. He tells us, that " it can anfwer 
" no other poflible end than to harden the minds, and to increafe 
" the prejudices, of the public againft the truth — that if he were 

I 



Letter II. 



in its number of rulers, refembles and equals the loweft 
form of political democracy, there is certainly more 
room, as In other democracies, for the difplay of tyranny 
than in a mixed and moderated government, fuch as that 

" to follow them over the ground they have trodden, it would be 
" to fall into the fame evil he condemns — and befides, however 
M it may be with others, he feels it impoiTible to repeat and refute 
M their flinders without being in a meafure contaminated with 
" their fpirit ; and rather than this, he would endure their utmoft 
u reproach. — That, from careful examinatirji of his mind', in 
f fhort, he is perfuaded that it would be more injurious to his 
" character as a Chriftian minifter, to enter into fuch a conteft, 
" than all their invectives can prove — and thai thefe are the rea- 
" fons why, in the kind of defence which he is pleafed to publifh? 
" he addrefTes himfelf only tGthofe who are under his pcftoral care** 
But, certainly, if this reafoning were conclufr r e, it would follow 
that whenever the conduct of a Chrifllan, or of a minifter was at- 
tacked, if the charges appeared to him unjuft and exaggerated, he 
ought by no means to endeavour to refute and remove them. It 
is merely his duty to alTert the contrary, and content himfelf with, 
fuppoling that this ajjertzon, though unsupported by proof, will be 
completely fatisfactory to the world at large, who know no more 
of him than of thofe who are his accufers. Nay, it is a necelTary 
confequence from his mode of arguing, that it is impollible for a 
Chriftian when aflailed by flanders, to reply to it with meeknefs ; 
and, like his blelTed Lord when reviled by his enemies, while he 
vindicates himfelf from their revilings, not to revile them . again. 
But is not this contrary at once to the commandments of fcripture, 
and the example of Jefus, who repeatedly repelled the flanders 
of his foes? Is it not at variance, alio, with the conduct of Paulj 
who, in his different Epiftles, frequently defends himfelf from the 
imputations which were caft upon himfelf and his miniftry by the 
Judaizing teachers ? And does it not imply a cenfure of your 
brother Mr. Ewing, who repeatedly attempted, though not with 
fuperdbundant meeknefs, to reply to Mr. Robertlon, refpecting the 
interefting charges which he advances againft him ; as well as to 
your friend Mr. Haldane, who thought proper to follow a fimilar 
courfe, when animadverfions were made upon his opinions and 
plan by a great literary character ? In fhort, as the honour and 
intereits of religion mult undoubtedly be affected in a very eminent 
B 2 



i6 



Letter IL 



of Prefbytery. In the latter, the admlniftration is vefted 
in a few, coropofed of minifters and lay-elders ; the 
laft of whom ought, at leaft by the conftitution of the 
church, to be chofen from the wifefl and moft pious 

degree by the accufations which are here advanced againft Mr. 
Little, if not individually refuted, and as it is irnpoflible for him, 
as in the cafe of a mere general allegation, to vindicate himfelf 
from thefe -particular charges by his future conduct, he appears to 
be bound, by every confideration, to anfwer precifely the accufa- 
tions here exhibited, and thus to wipe away from himfelf and 
his congregation the odium which appears to be- thrown upon 
them. 

If Mr. Little, befldes, as he here tells us, intends only to ad- 
drefs himfelf to thofe who are under his paftoral care, and to vin- 
dicate himfelf and his conduct Jolely to tfom, why has he publilhed 
this addrefs to the -world * Is the world to believe them any more 
than their paftor, bccaufe, as he was for a long time, they have 
yet been filent. Did not they too, by confirming the fentence of 
excommunication, make themfelves a party with him ? and would 
it be fair to give credit to their vague afTertions againft another 
party, any more than his, if they do not anfwer the proofs by 
which their opponents fupport their charges ? 

In fine, admitting even that the caufe for which thefe perfbns 
were excommunicated was juft and valid, one thing feems to be 
plain, that though the church afterwards fanctioned this deed, 
Mr. Little himfelf, after public worfhip, without convening the 
members and obtaining their confent, ventured to pronounce upon 
thefe individuals this awful fentence. Nay, when the church 
aflembled to decide upon the ftep which he had taken, he would 
not allow the men, whom he alone as yet could be confidered as 
having excommunicated, to fpeak in their own defence before 
they were excommunicated by the church alfo. And afterwards, 
-when two of the members who were expelled, waited upon him 
for a copy of the fentence of excommunication, he told them that 
he had burnt it, and would not write another; and that if they 
wanted fuch a paper, they might recover it from the flames. 
And, as if thefe infults had not fufficed, when they requefted him 
to produce a letter which they had written to Mr. Haldane, nar- 
rating their grievances, and which had been tranfmitted by him 
to Mr. Little 3 and when they afked him exprefsly to point qui 



Letter II. 



among the people, and ftiould be known to be zealoufly 
attached to their interefts. Among Independents how- 
ever, reprefentatives are excluded (a thing which is 
admitted in the loweft republican forms of government), 

any palTages of it in which they had misdated the truth, he pofi- 
tively refufed. Is fuch conduct, however, confident with the prin- 
ciples of modern Independents, who boaft fo much of the liberty 
and equity which are difcovered in their courts, and exclaim with 
fuch keennefs again ft the tyranny of our Eftablifhment ? Can 
their paftor, without requefting a meeting of the church, and ob- 
taining their confent, excommunicate any of their members ? Are 
the perfons who are accufed of any crimes or errors, which even 
merit excommunication, denied in their churches, before fentence is 
pronounced, the privilege of fpeaking in their own vindication ? 
Does it refemble the conduct of a man who was confcious that he 
had acted confidently with juftice or candour, immediately to burn 
the pap<?r which he had read in impeachment of the character of 
any of his members, and inflicting upon them one of the molt 
awful of punifhments? Was it worthy of fuch a confcioufnefs of 
rectitude and moderation, to refufe to furnifh them with another 
copy of the deed, and to bid them, if they chofe, recal it from the 
flames ? Could conduct fo tyrannical and imperious as this, how- 
ever merited the fentence, be tolerated in any civil courts in 
Europe, except thofe of the military defpot of France ? Did it 
intimate that he was able fatisfactorily to overturn the repre- 
fentation which they had given in their letter to Mr. Hal- 
dane, wh?n he refufed to read it, and point out any inftance 
in which their ftatement was incorrect? Are accufations like 
thefe, which fo deeply concern the honour of religion, and the refpec- 
lability of his churchy to be fit afide by (Imply telling us, that he 
would prejudice the wicked againft the truth, and would imbibe 
the fpirit with which flanders are uttered, were he to reply 
particularly to thefe allegations ? Such an apology may, perhaps, 
appear fufficient to Mr. Little and his Independent friends, but 
it will not fatisfy the world at large, judging by the principles of 
equity and integrity. And till thefe charges are individually, not 
merely denied, but refuted, the credit of religion, fo far as connected 
with the honour of Independents who aflbciate with him, and the 
difcipline of the church which retains him as its paflor, muft be coc- 
£dered as deeply and materially affected. 

B3 



Letter II. 



and a plan of ecclefiaftical adminiflration Is followed, 
which, in its form at leaft, is much more lawlefs, and 
more fitted to be productive either of tyranny or of anar- 
chy ; as it conftitutes every member of the church, man, 

Nor is the cafe of Mr. Little the only inftance of oppreflive 
government which occurs among Independents. Even in a taber- 
nacle-church which was formed lately at Elgin, under the mini- 
jftry of Mr. Ballentiae, and the greater part of which feparated 
from him, fomething very fimilar to fpiritual domination appears 
to have been practifed. Their paftor, while he profefTcd to grant 
to each member an equal right to judge with himfelf, was the 
only perfon, it feems in their apprehenfion, who governed their 
church. Againft this conduct they remonftrate in the memorial 
which they fent to him ; and obferve, " As to the government of 
" the congregation we (hall not ftickle for any name, though v/e 
" do not love the unfcriptural phrafe Independency. And as to 
■ the expreflion Prefbytcrian, from the word prefbyter, we know 
" it is fcriptural, for it occurs times almoft unnumbered in the 
" Bible, as any one may fee that has a Concordance, by looking at 
* the word elder, elders, which is the Engliih tranflation for the 
" word prefbyter, prejbyiers. But we will not ftrive about words. 
" Our determination is, however, that we will not be governed 
u by a Jingle perfon, for that is neither Prefbytery nor Inde- 
* f pendency, old nor new, but is a mere arbitrary government, like 
H Popery or Epifcopacy on a fmall fcale ; and this is a condition 
" that we cannot depart from, as it is contrary to our original 
" contract when we came together as minifter and people. 

" If our minifter," fay they again, " choofes to take the deacons 
" as a fefllon or ecclefiaftical council, to rule along with himfelf, 
" we are pleafed. If this does not fuit him, we agree that feven, 
" nine, or a greater number of men be cholen by mutual confent 
u of minifter and congregation, and as many of the prefent dea- 
" cons among them as can be agreed upon, and let thefe act as 
u reprefentatives of the church or congregation." After which 
they tell him again, that they will not be governed by him alone. 
See p. 51. and 52. of Ballentine's Obfervations. Whether this 
reprefentation was true in the extent which they fo frequently 
and ftrongly affirm, I do not pretend to fay. At any rate it is 
certain, as Mr. Bailentine acknowledges (p. 95.), that their 
charges were juil in a particular inftance, for without confulting 



Letter IL 



woman, or child, for fuch fometimes, from early piety, 
are received to that privilege, a ruler in the church. In 
Prefbytery, if a perfon feels himfelf aggrieved by the 
decifion of a Sefiion, he may appeal to a Prefbytery, 
from that to a Synod, and from that to a General 
AfiTembly, the fuperior court being in every inftance a 
check upon the inferior, having power to reverfe its acls 
and deeds. In Independency however, the decifion of 
the firft court is completely final, and the injured can 
appeal to no other fuperior tribunal upon earth. What- 
ever then may be the conduft of Preibyterians and Inde- 
pendents, fuppofing the rulers, upon each of thefe 
plans, to be equally faithful and equally confcientious 
(and, to give juftice to the argument, this mull be 

deacons, or members, or a Tingle individual, fb far as is fpecifled, 
he expelled a member from the communion of his church. 

To thefe examples of tyranny among Independent rulers, were 
it confidered as necelTary, many others might be added, to prove 
that the people, however flattered by them with the appearance 
of power, and with the folicitation of their requeft before any 
decifion is made, have frequently only the fhew. Of thefe I mall 
at prefent only mention one. Two refpedlable minifters lately, 
while travelling through England, happened to be prefent in an 
Independent church, where alfo there were another flranger mi- 
nifter and gentleman. After the fervices connected with preaching 
were finifhed, the paftor proceeded to difpenfe the facrament, and 
having confecrated the elements, announced to the congregation, 
as if to afk their confent, that this ftranger clergyman and gentle- 
man propofed that day to eat with them the fupper. Upon 
uttering however thefe words, without waiting a moment for the 
nconfent of the members, he turned to the Grangers, and, after 
participating himfelf, delivered to them the bread and cup. Was 
not this however, and the fact can be eftablifhed by inconteftable 
evidence, a mere tantalizing of the members of this congregation ? 
Was it not a pretending to confult them about the communication 
of a mod folemn and important privilege, while yet it was plafnly 
and avowedly declared that their opinion was not to be regarded 
at all? 



20 



Letter II. 



fuppofed), I contend that the Prejbyterian form of 
government is better fitted than that of Independency, 
to prevent tyranny, and fecure impartial equity to the 
people. 

" The diftinguiming feature of Prefbytery," you fay 
(p. 28.), " is the fyftem of reprefentation." The 
minifter and elders of a particular congregation govern 
that congregation ; the minifters and elders of a number 
of congregations, called a Prefbytery, judge of cafes 
which come before them by appeal againft the fentence 
of any particular Seflion ; and the minifters and elders 
of a number of Prefb) teries, denominated a Synod, 
decide upon thofe references which are made to them 
againft the determination of any particular Prefbytery ; 
as an AfTembly, again, does upon that of any particular 
Synod, as well as deliberates about matters of general 
importance. " In an Independent church however," 
you remark (p. 30.), " nothing is decided by repre- 
" fentation. Whatever is done by thofe who are 
" appointed to rule, is carried on in the prefence of the 
U general body, and with their confent. While an 
" Independent church thus afiumes the fole government 
<f of its own affairs, it is amenable to no fociety of men 
" under heaven. Li reference to its own members, its 
" decifion is final, and it pretends to interfere with 
" none elfe. It will be recollected (p. 47.), that 
M this peculiarity of Prefbytery confifts in the authority 
" of the representatives of a church of Chrift, as 
" diftinguifhed from the perfonal conviction of the 
" individual members of it. Now we have no hefitatiot* 
11 in afferting, that this diftinguiming feature of Prefby- 
" tery is dire&ly oppofed to the general fpirit, as well 
" as fome of the exprefs precepts of the word of God* 
" Every one will allow that Chriflianity is a fpiritual 
" religion ; and it terns a necefiary principle in fuch a 
" religion, that every one be convinced in his own 



Letter IL 



21 



" mind. The confcience of the Individual here has a 
M moll extenfive fphere of influence. Its approbation is 
" effentially neceflary to the exiftence of any act of 
ff acceptable worfhip. Whatsoever is not of faith is fin. 
" The moment that compulfion is introduced, Spiritual 
" worfhip is deftroyed. This general pofition, I believe, 
" few will difpute ; but mark how it affects the cafe in 
" queftion. What is the meaning of the authority 
M vefted in a Prefbytery, of that power by which they 
" can command any one under their jurisdiction to acl: 
§ according to their will ? Does not the very exiftence of 
u this authority imply the neceffity of it ? Does it not 
" prove that advice is not fufficient ; that the confcience 
" of the individual is not convinced ; that Something 
" more powerful than perfuafion muft be reforted to ? 
" There could be no room for authority, if conviction 
u were deemed neceflary, becaufe it is only by inftruc- 
il tion and perfuafion that it is produced. Like the 
" fenfitive plant, it fhrinks at the gentleft touch of 
(t power, and the rude intruder muft be completely 
" withdrawn before it again exert its energy. On thefe 
" principles, I confider the authority of Prefbytery as 
" ftanding on a moft unfcriptural bafi3. ,, 

Here, Sir, before I advert to your different remarks, 

I would notice a very ftriking and palpable inconfiftency 
between your view of the government and difcipline of 
your churches, and that which is delivered by another 
minifter in your connection, no lefs diftinguifhed for his 
prefent zeal againft our Prefbyterian Eftablifhment, 
tnan for the extent and accuracy of the knowledge 
of your eeclefiaftical conftitution which, in tfye opinion 
of his followers, he poffeffes. " Whatever" you affirm, 
" is done by thofe who rule in your congregations, is 

II carried on in the prefence of the general body, and with 
" their confent." " It feems by no means agreeable to 
<$ the directions given to the primitive churches," fays 



21 



Letter II. 



that gentleman however, in his lecture upon Acts xv, 
(p. 34. 35.), " that every meafure, however trifling or 
" obvious, mould be brought before the church for 
" general difeuffion, or for obtaining a public declaration 
" cf the opinion of each member before the office-bearers 
" prefume to put it in practice. From thefe, it is plain 
** that the office-bearers are to feed the flock ; that is, 
" to govern them by inftrudtion and perfuafion accord- 
u ing to the word of God. In doing this, they are 
" entitled, nay, bound to carry into effect the rules of 
¥ fcripture, and to require obedience from the church to thof§ 
« rules when laid before them. A different conduct de- 
u prives the church of the benefit of government, muft 
" give continual encouragement to diffenfion, and is 
" likely to make difcipline degenerate into an engine 
" of faction. 

" Nothing again," adds he (p. 35.)* " Is lefs 
" likely to ferve the caufe of truth, or even the caufe 
* of Chriftian liberty, than making every thing that 
u ought to be done, wait for difeufiion in full affembly. 
H If the church contains the collective wifdom, it cc^- 
M tains alfo the collective ignorance of the brethren : if 
u it combines their gifts and their grace, it combines 
" alfo their infirmities and corruption. Where every 
" thing muft undergo difcuffion, fome may be in danger 
H of thinking they have laws to make, inftead of laws 
" to obey. A few of the mod active fpirit and readied 
" elocution will become the real movers and managers 
" in every bufinefs ; and a part will thus be put for the 
H whole. When they are agreed, every thing muft be 
" complied with : when they are at variance, every thing 
" muft be objected to. No tyranny is fo bad as that of a 
" cabal ; that is, of thofe who are uppermoft for the 
u moment in the fermentation of anarchy. Debate, 
ct when indulged, is favourable to the introduction of 
" this fort of tyranny. It heats the pafiions, warps the 



Letter II. 23 

w judgment ; hurrie^raen to mcafures of violence and 
" precipitation ; engages them to the fide which they 
" happen to have taken ; inclines them to contention, 
" and tedious confultation, about matters of the moft 
" trivial importance ; and makes them be ever on the 
M watch to fatisfy a reftlefs difpofition, by feizing an 
" opportunity to interfere. In fhort, thofe <who mqjl need 
u rejlralnt, are, by fuch means, in danger of being led 
" to fet it at defiance ; while the peaceful, and thofe to 
M whom the government is committed nominally *, are terrified 
u and chained down by the turbulence of the reJIJ 9 

Here I am certain that you cannot fail to perceive 
the very fatisfadiory refutation of your fentiments in 
particular, and of thofe of Independents in general, with 
regard to the degree of ecclefiaftical power which mould 
be granted to rulers, that is contained in thefe words, 
even of a fellow-labourer in your vineyard. In them it 
is affirmed in the plainefl terms, that every meafurt 
ought not to be difcuffed in theprefence of church-members, 
and their opinion and concurrence afked before a decifion 
is made, becaufe, if this were done, the church would be 
deprived of the Benefit of government, continual encourage- 
ment would be given to dilTenfion, and difcipline would 
degenerate into an engine of faction. In them, alfo, it 
is maintained in terms no lefs explicit, that the governors 
are entitled, nay, bound, to carry into effect the rules of 
fcripture, and to require obedience from the church to 
thofe rules when laid before them ; i. e. (as is evident 
from the connection) without previoufly confultiDg them. 
And the reafons which are afiigned for allowing the 
rulers to determine in inferior matters, without the advice 
of the brethren, are much more conclufive for their 
authoritative decifion in thofe which are more important, 
without their affiftance. If lefs interejllng points, and 
points which are obvious, are not to wait for difcuffion in 
full affembly, becaufe, if the church contain the collective 



24 Letter II. 

wifdom, it contains alfo the colle&ive ignorance of the 
brethren ; and if it combines their gifts and their grace, 
it combines alfo their infirmities and corruption ; much 
more muft it be the duty of the rulers of the church 
themfelves, to decide authoritatively on more moment 
tous matters, and matters which are confelfedly more 
difficult and doubtful*. As I am perfuaded, then, 

* Not only is it manifefl: from the argument of Mr. Ewing which 
is here dated, that it is the office-bearers alone, even upon his 
ezvti principles, who are to judge in important as well as trivial 
matters without confulting the members ; but whatever he intend- 
ed, the fame thing feems to be evident from his other arguments. 
It is the former alone, he fays, who are to decide upon points 
which are trifling and obvious, becaufe, as he before affirms, " it is 
" the office-bearers alone who are authorized in fcripture to feed 
" the flock," or, as he explains it, " to govern them by inftruttion 
" and perfuafion according to the word of God." But when the 
office-bearers are required in the facred volume to feed, or, as he 
interprets it, to govern the flock, if it entitle them to determine 
in inferior matters, and matters which are obvious, without con- 
fulting them, is it not equally plain from it, that they -muft be 
much more authorized by it to exercife this power in more difficult 
points? And if the office-bearers only, in his opinion, mould 
judge in thefe lefs interefting cafes, becaufe, as he alfo afferts;, 
according to the paffages which he quotes, " they are entitled, 
" nay, bound by the word of God, in governing the church, to 
" carry into effect the rules of fcripture, and to require obedience 
44 from the church to thofe rules when laid before them /" the very 
fame expreffions, when employed in fcripture refpecting their 
power in general, with the obedience of the members, feem as 
clearly to intimate, that, in every point, the elders are to judge 
without foliciting the opinion and confent of the members. 
Are the rules of fcripture, which he admits, from thefe palfages, 
that they are to carry into effect, only trifles ? or do they not 
comprehend every thing the moft difficult and important, which 
can be the fubject of determination in ait ecclefiaflical court ? If 
then, as he contends, the office-bearers of the church are warrant- 
ed, by the palTages which he produces in the margin, to carry into 
effect the laws- of Chrift without consulting the opinion of the 



Letter II. 25 

that you will not confider this gentleman as blindly- 
attached to the caufe of Prefbytery, or in the lean: dif- 
pofed to promote its interefts, I beg you will attend to 
the tendency of his reafoning, and, after adjujling the 

members, and to require obedience from the members to them, 
when laid before them ; and if thefe laws, as is evident, include 
not only what is trivial and obvious, but what is important and 
cjfential ; is it not inconteftable, even from the arguments of this 
gentleman, who profelTes to be an Independent, that the office- 
bearers alone, as Prefbyterians maintain, are to determine in mat- 
ters which are important and ejfential, as well as thofe which are 
obvious and trivial? 

In fhort, if it is only in things which are obvious and trivial 
that the office-bearers alone, in the opinion of Mr. Ewing, are 
authorized to judge without confulting the members, who are the 
perfons that are to determine whether the matters which are 
to be the fubject of judgment, upon any particular occafion, arc 
trivial and obvious, or ioterefiing and doubtful ? It cannot be 
the people, for that would make the men over •wham this extra- 
ordinary power was to be exercifed, the judges of the extent to which 
it was to be employed, which is confidered as impolitic in all proper 
governments ; and it cannot be the office-bearers, for that would 
be to make the men who are to exercife this power, judges of the 
extent in which they were to exert it, w r hich has always been 
confidered as no lefs prepofteroiis. Unlefs then he can point out 
a fatisfactory ftandard, feparate from the opinion of the office-bearers 
and the people, by which it can be afcertained what things are 
trivial and obvious, and what are difficult and important, the 
commifTion of fuch power as that for which he pleads, to the elders 
of the church, at leaft upon the principles of Independent focieties, 
whatever they may think of it, feems in the higheft degree to be 
dangerous. Their office-bearers, it appears, according to this gen- 
tleman, are themfeives to judge in things trivial and obvious^ 
without granting the members a fmgle word or vote ; and, at the 
fame time, fo far as can be difcovered, it is the office-bearers alone 
who are to fay when they are to exercife this extraordinary power, 
and erect themfeives into the only judges in the fociety. If this 
be confident with your notions of liberty, or the firft principles of 
Independency, I Ihould be happy to fee upon what grounds it can 
be eftablifhed ? 

c 



26 



Letter IL 



differences among yourj elves, honeftly declare, whether ft 
does not at once flatly contradict and completely overthrow 
your favourite pofition, That ecclefiaftical rulers are not 
authorized authoritatively to decide upon ajty point 
which falls under their cognizance, without previoufly 
requefting the prefence and counfel of the members of 
the church ? 

I would obferve, moreover, that you yourfelf have 
admitted a cafe (and it has frequently occurred) in 
which, even in an Independent church, authoritative 
power muft be exercifed by your rulers. " Suppofe," 
you fay (p. 50.), " a cafe of difcipline to occur in an 
" Independent church, in which a difference of opinion 
" obtained, how far a charge was diftinftly proved. 
" The church muft aft in one way or another. If the 
<c party be excluded againft whom the charge is brought, 
!f thofe who think him not guilty, will take offence at 
w the meafure. If, on the other hand, he be continued 
11 in communion without reproof, thofe who think him 
" guilty, will be equally offended. " A decifion notwith- 
ftanding muft neceffarily be made, and the minority you 
admit muft either fubmit to the majority, or withdraw 
from their communion. Now, in this inftance, I would 
afk you, if an authoritative power be not ufed by the 
majority of this Independent church, without regard to 
the will of the minority, as much as by any clafs of 

If the ofHce-bearers, in fine, are to judge in Iefs inter eft ing mat- 
ters only, and are to take the judgment of the people in more im- 
portant affairs, does not this intimate, that though they are fit for 
determining what are confidered as trifles, they are not equal to 
the determination of things which are intricate and interefting, and 
need the fuperior or combined information of the members ? ;And that 
though it would be dangerous, from the collected ignorance of the 
latter, as Mr. Ewing affirms, to allow them to judge in things 
obvious and trivial, it is perfectly fife to permit them to judge m 
things dubious and important ? 



Letter II. 



27 



Prefbyterian rulers ? and if they do not acl as decidedly, 
without any regard to the convi&ions of their brethren ? 
Befides, I would inquire, whether this muft not be the 
cafe in Independent, as well as Prefbyterian churches, in 
every in/lance (and they cannot be few) in which a ques- 
tion is carried and acled upon by a majority againft a 
minority ? Is not the opinion of the latter uniformly dif- 
regarded ? Is not the will of the former executed as a 
law ? Can any religious fociety exijl without it ? Does 
not this unqueftionably involve of necejfty, as much au- 
thority as the decifion of any Prefbyterian court ? And 
is not the minority obliged as readily to fubmit to this 
authoritative determination, if it be an inferior point — 
or if it be a fundamental article, as univerfally to fepa- 
rate from their former brethren, if they are fo difpofed, 
as in Prefbyterian churches ? 

When a majority, in a word, of any of your churches 
determines againfl a minority, that a brother who has 
happened to offend before all, mould be rebuked before 
all, that he may be taught by it to be afhamed, I fhould 
be glad to know, if it is only a fimple advice which is 
delivered ? And when fuch a majority decides againft a 
minority, that a brother is to be excommunicated, and 
their decifion is fulfilled, I fhould be happy to be inform- 
ed, if it is only a fimple opinion which is dated ? This, I 
believe, you will hardly maintain : and confequently, 
Cnce in thefe and all other inflances, where the will of a 
majority is carried and adled upon againft a minority, 
from the very nature of things, authority is exercifed, I 
hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents 
to declaim againft Prefbyterians, when they claim for 
their rulers, the fame portion of authority which is necef- 
farily afTumed by the majority of the members in each of 
their congregations ; and without which, whatever perfla- 
tion might be employed, and whatever advices might be de- 
livered, not one of their focieties can be conceived to exifh 
C a 



a8 Letter II. 

You affirm, however, that to exercife authority with- 
out the prefence and confent of the members of the 
church is inconfiftent with the fpirituat nature of ChrinVs 
kingdom, one of the laws of which is, that before a perfon 
can perform any acceptable aft of worfhip, he muft have, 
in fome meafure, a conviction of its fitnefs and propriety. 
And you contend, that fmce a man muft firft be con- 
vinced by perfuafion, before he can render any fuch 
obedience, authority is unneceffary, for if authority is 
ufed as well as perfuafion, it feems to imply that the 
latter is inefficient. But in anfwer to this I would 
obferve, that though authority is claimed by Prefl>yte- 
rian rulers over their members, it rs not an unreafonable 
nor imperious authority. They confider themfelves as 
the fervants of the Lord jefus : the fubjeftion which 
they demand from the members of their churches, is not to 
themfelves, or to their will, as you infinuate (p. 47.), but 
to what they confider as the will of their bleffed Matter ; 
and the obedience which they require to their decifions 
in his name, is not, as you allege, blind and compulfa- 
tory, but enlightened and voluntary. Nor do they barely 
deliver their commands, and enjoin immediate and implicit 
fubmiffion (as one would imagine from your reprefenta- 
tion) ; but while they declare authoritatively whatever 
appears to them to be the mind of Chrift, and command 
all cordially to obey it, they, no lefs than Independents, 
are careful to ftate the grounds upon which their decifioa 
refts, and to afford to their members every mean by which 
their confciences may be fatisfied, and this enlightened 
and voluntary obedience produced. Their public deli- 
berations in every inftance, where it is fit, are open to 
the hearing and examination of their members ; and 
there feems to be nothing in Prejbytery to prevent every dif- 
cufiion which is proper to be carried on before ah 
Independent, to be carried on alfo before a Prefbyteriaii 
congregation. The reafons, befides, for every deter- 



Letter If. 



mination are not only uniformly fiated, as has been 
already mentioned, but if any of their members 
either do not underftand their meaning, or perceive 
their force, they are never denied an opportunity 
of obtaining fatisfa&ion by private converfation, or cor- 
refpondence with the rulers. If, in any cafe, in fhort, 
of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiefce in the de- 
cifion of thefe rulers, forbearance can be granted to them 
no lefs than among Independents; and if, in any cafe, 
it be neceffary to feparate, becaufe it is of fuperior im- 
portance, and they cannot comply, they are not compelled 
to obey, but are allowed to feparate no lefs than among 
them. 

There is one point however, and but one, in which 
Prefbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the 
fubjecl before us, and on this you feem to lay confider* 
able ftrefs ; namely, that though the obedience which is 
required from their members by the former, is as free and 
as enlightened as that which is demanded from their mem- 
bers by the latter, Prefbyterian rulers do not admit their 
people to judge and vote upon the propriety of their 
meafures along with themfelves, before they are finally 
adopted. But to this facl: the words of Mr. Ewing* 
which I have quoted, furnifh a complete and fatisfa&ory 
anfwer. Nothing, undoubtedly, more directly tends to 
fubverJ the order and government of the church, as that 
gentleman affirms, than to allow every member a right 
to judge and vote upon the meafures of rulers, and to 
oblige thefe rulers to retract or carry forward any of thefe 
meafures, only in as far as it is agreeable to a majority 
of the people. It is, in fa£, conflicting thofe who 
mould be ruled, the rulers, while the decifions of thofe who 
are dignified with that name are entirely fubjecl: to their 
determination. Their opinions, it is evident, where this 
fyilem is adopted, can only be paffed into laws, when it 
pleafes the majoritv of thofe who are to obey them-; and 

c 3 



30 Letter II. 

when It does not pleafe them, they are completely re- 
jected. All the power, therefore, which is vefted In the 
rulers, according to this plan, is merely nominal ; and 
amounts fimply to a right to ftate thofe meafures which 
they have in contemplation to adopt, and to prefide ia 
the meeting during the deliberation of the members, 
while the right of judging, as to the propriety of thefe 
meafures, is committed to the latter. As therefore it 
feems plain, that to grant to the members, according to 
this fyftem, a right to vote upon the propofals of the 
rulers, is utterly fubverfive of the power of thefe rulers, 
and reduces them to the fituation of thofe who are ruled, 
while it gives the fupreme authority to the multitude, the 
greater part of whom, according to Mr. Ewing, are un- 
qualified for judging — as this fyftem, I fay, is attended 
with thefe confequences, it appears to be totally inad- 
mifiible, and that it is the province of the rulers, with- 
out the afliftance of the members, to govern the affairs 
of the church of God. 

If authority, moreover, as exercifed by Prefoyterians> 
as you evidently infmuate, is not confiftent with liberty of 
confeience, I demand how it is confiftent with it, whea 
exercifed by the majority of an Independent congregation 
over the minority P and if it be confidered as unnecejfary, 
as pra&ifed by Prefbyterians, as you explicitly affert, 
becaufe advice and perfuafion appear to you fufficient for 
the government of the church, I afk how it is requi/ite, 
when affumed by fuch a majority over the minority, who 
muft either fubmit, or renounce their communion ? 
Cannot advice and perfuafion among them too fuffice ? 
Is it replied, as you have done (p. 51.), that the exer- 
cife of authority in fuch cafes, among Independents, 
" is an unavoidable refult of focial worftiip, and of the 
" formation of Chriftian churches, as long as imperfec- 
" tion of knowledge and of character remains I" I affirm, 
that fince you allow that focial worfhip and imperfe&ion 



Letter II. 



at once of knowledge and of character exift alfo among 
Prefbyterians, among them too, even on your own prin- 
ciples, you muft grant it to be neceffary ; while at the 
fame time I contend, that for the reafons which have 
been mentioned, or may yet be mentioned, it mould be 
committed to the rulers, and to the rulers alone, without 
admitting the members to be their advifers. I conceive 
it befides to be a very evident truth, that whatever is 
delivered by any clafs of rulers, even though fubordinate, 
whether facred or civil, muft be much more regarded 
when clothed with authority, than when communicated 
fimply as an advice or admonition. It is true, that, till 
previoufly convinced of its propriety, in many cafes, in 
civil, and always in facred matters, no man can rightly 
perform any obedience to any government, whether civil 
or ecclefiaftic. But what would we think of the man 
who mould affirm, that becaufe it is requifite to {late to 
the people, very often in civil, and always in facred mat- 
ters, the reafons for which they are called to yield their 
obedience, it is unneceffary and improper for the rulers to 
clothe their communications to them, requiring this 
obedience, in the language of authority, and that they 
ought limply to enforce it by advice and perfuafion F 
Would not fuch an aJTertion be rejected with contempt, 
as not only fubverfive of one of the ftrongeft prefervatives 
of public order and focial peace, but as repugnant even 
to the common fenfe of mankind, which, by uniform 
practice, has conftantly declared that advice is inefficient, 
and that the exercife of authority, in every government, 
is abfolutely eifential to fecure the fubordination and 
obedience of the fubjects ? 

The authority, then, for wmich I argue, I wifh it to 
be remembered, is not intended to fuperfede but to promote 
inquiry ; is not defigned to compel men, as you main- 
tain (p. 47.), without tonviclion to believe and obey their 
ecclefiaftical rulers, but to prefent to them more com- 



32 Letter II. 

manding incitements to examine, and more powerful 
though fecondary enforcements and obligations to obey 
the truth. For this purpofe, it invefts the governors 01 
the church with a power, not merely to declare to her 
members what appears to be the mind and will of Chrift, 
and to advife them to obey it, but with a power 
to inform them, that if, upon examination and re- 
flection, they are not difpofed to fubmit to it, they 
can no longer be entitled to the privileges of bis people 
The exercife of this power in every church, whether 
Independent or Prefbyterian, either by the many or the 
few, I apprehend is effential to its very exiilence ; for it 
requires but little obfervation to perceive that neither 
the purity nor the government of any fociety could long 
be preferved, where advices only were delivered to the 
members. And, in fhort, I muft remark, that while 
Independents themfelve?, though they affect to reject it, 
grant to the majority, in each of their congregations, 
the very fame authority which Prefbyterians claim for 
their ecclefiaftical rulers, were they to lay afide this au- 
thority, and act fimply by advice and perfuafion, the 
moft awful confluences muil enfue from it to their 
churches. Ancient chaos, in a more fearful form, would 
once more refume her horrid reign ; confufion and anar- 
chy would univerfally prevail ; and order and govern- 
ment, in their lawlefs focieties, would be completely 
annihilated. 

In fine, I would obferve that the various terms alfo 
employed in fcripture to exprefs the power conferred 
upon church-rulers, feem plainly to intimate that they 
are entitled to govern thofe over whom they are placed, 
not merely by advice and perfuafion, but by authorita- 
tive rule; and to govern them thus authoritatively, 
without previoufly confulting them as to their opinion 
and concurrence. As an examination of thefe terms 
will enable us the better to afcertain at once either 



Letter II. 



33 



the fallacy or the force of the preceding reafoning, let us 
proceed, though briefly, to confider a few of them ; 
together with fome others, defcriptive of that obedience 
which is due from the members of a church to their 
rulers ; and, with an examination of their import, con- 
clude this Letter. 

In reviewing, then, the terms employed in fcripture 
to denote the former, we fee that it is compared to the 
power of a parent over his family ; for fays Paul (i Tim. 
iii. 4, 5.), " a bifhop," or overfeer, " muft be one who 
" rules well his own houfe, having his children in fub- 
" jedVion with all gravity ; (for if a man know not how 
•* to rule his own houfe, how fhall he take care of the 
4i church of God ?") Now it is evidently here affirmed, 
that a power, correfponding in fome meafure to that 
which is poffefTed by a parent, or matter over his family, is 
vefted in the rulers of the Chriflian church, and that the 
latter mull be exercifed by them with judgment and pru- 
dence, if they are parents or matters, before they can be 
admitted to enjoy the former. But it is evident, that 
the power of a parent over his family is in the ftri&eft: 
fenfe authoritative, as well as perfuafive ; that while he 
mould employ perfuafion, he is invefted alfo with authori- 
ty, and can lawfully exercife it whenever it is requifite ; 
and that it is the duty of his children to be fubjecl: to 
his commands, without waiting till their opinion be afked 
and adopted. Unlefs, then, the power which mould be 
exercifed alfo by church-rulers is authoritative, as well 
as perfuafive, the reafoning of the Apoftle, in the palfage 
before us, would be totally inconclufive. It would be 
faying in effect, that before a man can be qualified for 
the exercife of a lower degree of power, a power of ad- 
vice, he muft have exercifed aright a much higher degree 
of it, or a power of authority. As fuch a fpecies of ar- 
gumentation however is utterly unworthy of the infpired 
Apoftle, we muft certainly reject the interpretation which 



34 Letter II. 

leads to It, and admit that the rulers of the Chrliliaa 
church, like the parent of a family and the mailer of a 
houfe, have a power not only of advice, but of authority. 

Their power is reprefented likewife as refembling that 
of an overfeer, who does not merely prefide and advife, 
but authoritatively directs what he wifhes to be done by 
thofe over whom he is appointed ; for in A&s xx. 28. 
all the elders of the church of Ephefus, and they alone, 
in the fenfe there intended, are affirmed to have been 
made overfeers of the flock, «7r«rxo7r«< *. But if fuch an 
©verfight as that which we have mentioned, in govern- 
ment as well as doctrine, be here afferted to be commit- 
ted to the elders, and the elders excluflvely, it feems 
naturally to follow, that, like all other official overfeers, 
they muft have an authoritative fuperintendence of thofe 
over whom they are placed, and a fuperintendence which 
entitles them to prefcribe to church-members particular 
a£ls of fervice and obedience, without previoufly confut- 
ing their opinion and advice. This idea is flrongly con- 
firmed, by reflecting that this very word is ufed in a celebra- 
ted Greek tranflation of the Old Teftament (Numb. xxxi. 
14. and 2 Kings xi. 15.) to denote the authoritative 
fuperintendence of military officers, the captains of hun- 
dreds, and the captains of thoufands, over their men ; 
clafs of governors who were not accuftomed merely tc 
give advices to their foldiers, or to requeft their confer: 
before they delivered their orders. 

Their power, befides, is defcribed as fimilar to that j 
the elders who judged in the gates of the cities of Ifrael, 

* Compare I Tim. iii. : from which paflage it is manifeft, th 
it is an overfight, not as that of one Chrifrian over another, bu 
official and authoritative, and which is entirely peculiar to tJ 
mimflers of the church, that is here intended; for it is aflertet 
in that place, that only thofe Chriftians who were already over 
feers in the former fenfe, and had the particular qualities then 
fpecified, were fitted for the overfight there mentioned. 



Letter it. 



for they are frequently in the New Teftament diftmgulfk- 
cd by their name. See i Tim. v. 17. &c. Now, {ince 
the name elder when applied to the judges of ancient 
Ifrael, and fince the correfponding terms, fenators and 
aldermen in modern times, uniformly denote authorita- 
tive officers, mud not the very fame name when given to 
the rulers of the Chriftian church, import in them too a 
title to authority * ? 

In fhort, not only are they diftinguimed by thefe 
names, but they are characterized by others, if poffible,. 
ftill more expreffive of this authority. Thrice are they 
defcribed in the very fame chapter (Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 24.) 
by the title of rulers, which, though the 

weakefl of the appellations beftowed upon them, and 
though it originally denotes merely guides or con- 
ductors, fignifies very frequently in the Septuagint, and 
the beft claffic authors, civil rulers, and almoft uniformly 
ill the New Teftament, authoritative governors. It is ap- 
plied by Peter ^ 1 Epiftle ii. 14.) to fubordinate governors, 
to whom Chriftians are to fubmit, as well as to the king, 
who is fupreme ; by Matthew (chap. x. 18.), to denote 
thofe governors and kings before whom they were to be 
brought for their adherence to the truth ; by the celebra- 
ted Greek tranflators, in their verfion of Micah iii. 9. to the 
political heads of the houfe of Jacob ; in their verfion of 
Deut. i. 13. to the civil rulers, whom Mofes appointed 
over the hundreds and thoufands of the children of 
Ifrael; and in their verfion of Dan. iii, 2. to the go- 

* We know alfo, that the rulers of the Jewifh fynagogue were 
commonly diftinguifhed by the name of elders. Hence, in 
Acts xiii, 15. and Mark v. 22. what is rendered in our verfion 
" the rulers of the fynagogue," the old Syriac verfion tranflates 
by a word fignifying elders or feniores. And hence, moil probably, 
from a fimilarity of power between them and the rulers of the 
Chriftian church, the fcripture has transferred to the latter their 
name. 



36 Letter II. 

vernors of the various provinces of Babylon under Nebu- 
chadnezzar 5 by Xenophon, in his Anabafis, to the 
general or commander of the Grecian army 5 by Lucian, 
in his Pfeudomantis, torn. i. p. 904. to the governor of 
Bithynia fo rort 'rtyovpivos Bdwius) ; by Jofephus, in his 
Antiquities, book xviii. chap. iv. to Pontius Pilate, the 
governor of Judea ; by Matthew, in his Gofpel, chap, xxvii. 
no lefs than thrice, and by Luke, in his Gofpel, 
chap. xx. once, to the fame perfon ; by the latter Evange- 
lift (A6ls vii. 10.) to Jofeph, when made governor by 
Pharaoh over Egypt, and all his houfe ; and twice again, 
by the fame hiilorian (Afts xxiii. 24. 26.) to Felix the 
governor. With the utmoft propriety therefore does Beza, 
in his note upon the thirteenth chapter of the Hebrews, 
remark, that the application of this term to the governors 
of the church, not only imports that they are veiled with 
authority, but " with very great authority ;" for, " it is," 
adds he, " verbum au&oritatis maximae," a word ex- 
preffive of very great authority. And, as if even this 
did not fuffice, they are defcribed by another title flitl 
ftronger and more energetic, ^<5;r^»yo* ; which is ren- 
dered in our Bibles (Rom. xii. 8. and 1 Tim. v. 17.) 
" rulers," and in 1 ThefT. v. 1 2. " thofe who are over 
u Chriftians in the Lord." This term, we are afTured 
by Stephens, in his Thefaurus, is very frequently given 
to political governors ; and is the very word employed in 
I Tim. iii. 4, 5. already quoted, to fignify the authority 
of a parent over his family, or of a mailer over his houfe ; 
and in Titus iii. 8. 14. (compare Conftantinus's and Park- 
huriVs Lexicons), to exprefs the command which a Chrif- 
tian mould endeavour to attain over himfelf, fo as to 
excel in good works *. And this very term, as will 
afterwards be proved, is very often ufed by Plato, and 



* Thefe are all the places, fo far as is recollected, where it 
occurs in the New Teftament. 



Letter II. 



37 



Xenophon, and Thucydides, and Herodotus, and De- 
mofthenes, and Ariftotle, for the magljlrates of cities, and 
governors of countries. Since therefore thefe terms, 
which are fo frequently employed in the beft claffic au- 
thors, and ancient verfions and facred oracles, to 
fignify fubordinate rulers and governors, are applied to 
the elders of the Chriftian church, and fmce obedience is> 
required from the people to their elders at the very time 
when they are diftinguifhed by thefe names, is it not 
plain that they mull be poffeffed of a power not merely 
to advlfe and direct, but authoritatively to govern the 
church of Chrift, whatever may be the degree and ex- 
tent of that authority ? And if it be affirmed, that 
notwithstanding the application of thefe names to them, 
they are Rill to be viewed only as guides and advifers^ 
upon the fame principle may it not be afferted, that 
though they are given aifo to Jofeph, Felix, and 
Pilate, and the different rulers of the provinces of 
Babylon, they ought to be confidered as no more than 
advifers of the people ? and that when Pilate faid 
concerning our Lord, " Take him and crucify him," 
he did no more than give an advice ? But if fuch 
an inference, when applied to fubordinate political 
governors, would moil certainly be confidered as com- 
pletely ridiculous, mull it not be equally ridiculous, 
when applied to fubordinate ecclefiaftical rulers, who 
are undeniably diftinguifhed by the very fame ap- 
pellations ? 

And, upon the whole, the terms likewife, as we have 
already remarked, which are employed in fcripture to 
denote the obedience of the people to their rulers, feem to 
intimate, that the latter are ihvefted with a power not 
only of advice but authority. Not only is one word 
(nuko-h) ufed to exprefs their obedience (Heb. xiii. j 7.), 
which fignifies fometimes to yield to perfuafion, and at 
other times to obey or fubmit to power and autho- 

D 



Letter II. 



rity # ; but another word ( e v7ruxu), which is ndt only- 
rendered by Leigh, and Hedericus, and Parkhurft, anc 
Beza, and the Vulgate, together with our tranllators 
¥ fuhnit" but is frequently taken by the Greek writers 
according to the teilimony of ona of our moft learnec 
lexicographers, " to fignify obedience with JubmiJJi^e re 
** Jpefl." A third word is ufed (War*^; — See i Cor 
xvi. 16.) to exprefs their obedience, if pofiible, fti 
itronger, and which is very often employed to denote 
^ven the moft entire and complete fubjedlion which it> 
mentioned in fcripturef. It is a metaphorical expref 
fion, derived originally from the fubje&ion and obedience 

* Thus, James iii. 3. (and this is the leaft energetic of all the 
terms defcriptire of their obedience), " We put bits in the horfes 
" mouths, that they may obey us," 7T£og to TrukrQxi ctvTovg 'uptf 
thus, too, Titus iii. I. " Put them in mind to obey magiftrates,' 
7Fit6ot^uv 9 &c. Thus, alfo, Homer in his Iliad, booki. line 79th, 
fpeaking of Agamemnon, the captain-general of the Greeks, fays, 
*0? f^iyot, 7ruvTav A^yuuv xectTiM, text c* kuQovtou Ayjuua ; 
" Who rules fupreme over all the Greeks, and whom the Greeks 
" obey" — not comply with in his advice. And in line 33d, men- 
tioning the obedience of Chryfes to the command of this prince, 
accompanied with the mod terrible denunciations of punifh- 
ment, he fays, z$xt z^ztczv *o yi?xv y jcui z7rzihro fiv$* ; 
u He lpoke, and the old man trembled, and obeyed his word,"-— 
not certainly acquiefced in his advice from perfuafion, for every 
feeling of his foul revolted againit his obedience. In the fenfe, 
moreover, of obedience it appears evidently to be taken in this 
pafTage in the Hebrews, if we attend to its connection with the 
verb 'v7ru>tco, and its being ufed to denote the duty of Chriftians 
to their »ys^cvf?,, which is rendered by our tranllators rulers, and 
which, as we have already fhewn, moft frequently fignifies gover- 
nors. Mere compliance with advice, however, is not io much the 
duty of inferiors to rulers, as fucb, as obedience is ; and confequently 
our tranflators, in the pafTage before us, have very judicioufly 
rendered iruh<rh " obey." 

f And yet this very word denotes even the obedience, in the 
paJTage referred to, w hich was to be given to deacons in the ex ecu- 



Letter II. 



59 



of foldiers to their commanders, than which ufually no- 
thing is mere fubmifiive. It is employed to exprefs the 
obedience of .children to their parents, who unqueftion- 
ably are poffefied of authority over them ; for it is the 
very word which denotes the fubjec"lion of the bleffed 
Jefus to his parents, Luke ii. 51. ; and is the fame word 
which is ufed, 1 Tim. iii. 4. when it is faid, " Having 
" his children in fubjecl;ion with all gravity. " It figni- 
fles the fubjeclion of fervants to their matters, who 
undoubtedly are in veiled with authority over them, and 
can prefcribe to them whatever fervices they choofe, 
without foliciting their confent and approbation. Thus, 
Tit. ii. 9. " Exhort fervants to be obedient .(Wot«ww0«m) 
" unto their own mafters, and to pleafe them well in all 
'■f things; not anfwering them again :" and 1 Peter ii. 18. 
" Servants, be fubjeel: to your mailers with all fear" 
*wX6Tce,c-(retfivQt iv 7rccvn Qofiw. Befides, it is the moft> 
common exprefiion for denoting the obedience of fub- 
jecls to their civil rulers, who are entitled not merely to 
advife, but to govern them by the exercife of authority. 
Thus, Rom. xiii. I. " Let every foul be fubjeel. to the 
** higher powers," Wc?w<rs<r06> ; and again, ver. 5. 
" Wherefore ye mud needs be fubjeel (Wot^fit-st^), 
<( not only for wrath, but for confeience fake." Thus, 
too, in Titus iii. 1. " Put them in mind to be fubjeel: to 
" principalities and powers," WoT*j<m<r0#; ; and thus, 
likewife, in 1 Peter ii. 13, 14. " Submit yourfelves to 
" every ordinance of man for the Lord's fake," WorayjjTs. 
And, in fhort, although this word in a fingle inftance 
i be ufed metaphorically, to denote fubmiflion where no 
authority is poflefled (1 Peter v. 5.), in every other in- 
ftance it fignifies fubmiflion from inferiors to fuperiors, 

tion of their office, as well as the obedience which was to be 
yielded alfo to every higher office-bearer in his function, " who 
" helped with Paul, and laboured." 

D 2 



Letter II. 

where, however diverfified, from the variety of the rela- 
tion, that fubjec"lion may be, it always implies fubmif- 
f:on to authority. But if the mod entire fubmiffion, not 
merely to advice but to authority, which the nature of 
the relation can poffibly admit, be almoft invariably 
denoted by this word, and if this very term be employed 
to exprefs the fubmiffion which is due from the members 
of the church to thofe who are their rulers, is it not 
obvious that the latter are entitled, not merely to advife, 
but authoritatively to govern the church of Chrift ? And 
if it be alleged, that, though this term is employed in 
fcripture to exprefs the obedience of Chriftians to their 
rulers, it cannot be proved from it that they are to be 
fubject to them, confidered as inverted with authority, 
any farther than they are difpofed to adopt their advice, 
upon the fame principle it ought to be evinced, that as 
the fame term is ufed to denote the fubmiffion of children 
to their parents, and fervants to their mailers, and fub- 
je<5b to their civil governors, the latter are not entitled 
to claim from the former, in any inftance, fubjeftion to 
their authority, but fimply acquiefcence in their counfels. 
But if fuch a meaning would be confidered as inadmif- 
iible, becaufe totally fubverlive of the duties which are 
due in civil life to parents, and mafters, and magittrates, 
mull it not be equally inadmiffible in the prefent inflance, 
becaufe no lefs fubverfive, not merely of that acquiefcence 
in their advice, hut of that fubjeSion to their authority, 
which feems naturally to be fuggefted from it, as due 
from the people to their ecclefiaftical rulers ? 

If the rulers of the church, then, are not entitled to 
authority, it would appear that the language of the facred 
oracles, though dictated by infpiration, in this particular 
at leaft, mull be confidered as incorrect. It has employed 
not merely one term, but a number of terms, which, in 
their natural, and unforced, and mod frequent acceptation, 
plainly aflign to ecclefiaftical rulers an authoritative 



Letter II. 41 

power, while at the fame time it is certain that fuch a 
power was never intended to be intrufted with them, 
lnftead therefore of being fitted to make Chriftians per- 
fect, and furnifhing them thoroughly for every good 
work, has it not tended rather to bewilder and miflead 
the church, and led it to flatter that defire of authority 
which is fo natural to man, by granting to her rulers, 
in every age, a degree of power which they ought never 
to have enjoyed ? From this charge, moreover, it feems 
totally impoffible to vindicate the fcripture, unlefs it be 
fuppofed that the terms which it ufes upon this intereft- 
ing fubjedl are juft and accurate, are to be underilood in 
their obvious and common fignification, and are intended 
to fuggeft that ecclefiaftical rulers are to govern the 
church not merely by advice and perfuafion, but by the 
exercife of authority. 

The fum then of what has been faid in the preceding 
remarks is briefly this — That the rulers of the church 
in every age, according to Prefbyterians, are invefled not 
only with a power of advice, but of authority — That this 
power, however, is only minifterial and fubordinate, not 
fupreme and legiflative — That this power, though de- 
cried and condemned by Independents, is the fame with 
what is claimed by the majority of each of their dif- 
ferent congregations over the minority— That it affords to 
all who are under its controul, every mean of informa- 
tion that is necefTary to produce an enlightened and 
voluntary obedience — That forbearance can be granted 
in inferior matters, even where it is exerciftd, no lefs than 
among. Independents, to all who cannot fully comply 
with its commands — And that in more important points 
where they cannot acquiefce, liberty is granted them to 
retire from that connection, no lefs than among them— 
That the exercife of this power is abfolutely eflential to 
the exiftence of fociety — that to admit the people to 
judge and vote before a decifion is made, is only to 



4* 



Letter II. 



transfer it to them from the rulers — that fuch a tranf- 
ference conftitutes thofe the governors of the church 
who are bound to* obey — That the names beftowed 
in the facred oracles upon ecclefiaftical rulers, and the 
terms employed in them to defcribe the nature of the 
obedience of members, are directly contradictory to fuch 
a plan — And, in fhort, that the only thing which pre- 
irrves order, and difcipline, and government, even hi the 
congregations of Independents, is their practically renouncing 
their favourite idea of adminiftering only by advice and 
perfuafion, and acting upon the Prejbyierian principle of 
authority. To this it may be farther added, that if this 
form of government, which veils in the rulers the autho- 
rity for which we contend, appears to be incompatible 
with religious liberty, becaufe every member is not per- 
mitted to vote, and adopt or reject the decifrons of the 
rulers, upon the fame principle it may be dernonflrated, 
that it is no lefs inconfiflent with chnl liberty, to commie 
to the rulers the government of the Jlate ; and that before 
any decifion be made by the magiftrates of a city, or 
county, or kingdom, the people mould be convened, and 
the:: votes collected. But as fuch a principle would be 
confidered as prepoflerous in civil polity, mult it not be 
equally fo in ecclefiaftical government * ? andconfequently* 

* How aftonifhing then, if fuch only be the authority for which 
Prefbyterians contend, that it mould be the ground of fuch virulent 
reprehenfion to Independents ! One of them, before quoted 
(fee Watt's Plain Proof, p. 176.), exclaims with much keennefs 
sgainft their office-bearers, for claiming a power " only minijlcrially 
" to determine controverfies of faith, and cafes of confcience." 
" Here," fays he, " they determine not only how a man is to act, 
" and how he is to be treated outwardly ; but, as it were, inter- 
*\ pofe between man and his Maker, and dictate what he is to 
" believe." But will this writer prove, or will any Independent 
prove, that Prefbyterian rulers alTume a higher power, in the 
decifion of thefe points, over their members, ..than is afTumed by 
the majority of an Independent church over the minority ? Or 



Letter II. 43 

mult not that view of the dependence of the rulers on the 
votes of the members, to procure efficiency to their mea- 

» 

can they demon Orate, that the former iuterpofe more between 
Chriftians and their Maker, in their communion, or dictate more 
to them what they are to believe, than is necejfarily done, (though 
they feem to difclaim it) by the majority to the minority in each 
of their churches ? 

" It is faid," adds this writer (p. 177.)? " that the decrees of 
<c their office-bearers, if conjonant to the -word of God, are to be re- 
" ceived with fubmiflion. Weftmin. Confef. chap. xxxi. feet. iii. 
" This," fays he, " feems, at firft view, to remove the excep- 
" tionablenefs of this power; but when the matter is viewed 
" more clofely, the cafe alters. Whether are the courts them-^ 
" felves to decide, whether their decrees are confonant to the 
" word of God ; or, are thofe who are to receive thefe decrees, to 

judge of this every one for himfelf ? The latter fuppofition, in 
" a great meafure, deftroys the idea of authority and fubmiiTion. 
" We are to fubmit to decrees as far as we think them right, 
" i. e. as far as we pleafe. This feems not to be fubmiflion. This 
" abfurdity is avoided; the courts themfelves judge whether their 
" decinons are, or are not, right. They generally affirm the de- 
" crees, and bind the church-members to the former decrees ; and 
" alio to their fentence, that thofe decrees are confonant to the 
" word of God. And thus they bind them under fancticn of 
*' excommunication." 

To this, however, it is replied, by demanding whether the ma- 
jority in an Independent congregation, when they pafs a decree, do 
not claim alio an exclufive power of judging as to its confonancy 
to the word of God, as much as the rulers of any Prefbyterian 
court ? Do they not announce to all who are to remain in their 
communion, that they mufc receive that decree as the mind of God, 
as really as Preibyterians do to the members of their churches ? 
And do they not tell all who apply to them for memberftip, that 
they mull admit fuch decrees as a jufl reprefentation of the mind 
of God upon the points to which they relate, as much as the rulers 
of Prefbyterian churches ? If the latter then, when they exercife 
this power over the members, are reprobated becaufe they aiTume 
what is denominated by Independents an undue authority, mull 
not the fame objections prefent themfelves againft the former, 
who aflume a power no lefs high and commanding ? " Do not 



44 Letter II. 

fures, which is held by Independents, be altogether reject- 
ed as fubverfive of the adminiftration of the church of 
Chrift I 

u they alfo themfelvcs" as well as the rulers in a Prefbyterian 
court, " judge whether their decrees are, or are not, right ? Do 
" not they" as generally " affirm their decrees, and bind the 
4< minority and every new applicant, as well as the church at 
u large, to receive thefe decrees; and alfo to their jentence, that thefe 
M decrees are confonant to the -word of God ? And do not they thus 
" bind them under fancHon of excommunication ? " And, in fhort, 
becaufe Prefby terians invite their members to compare their decrees 
with the word of God, that when they receive thefe decrees, they 
may yield to them not a blind but an enlightened obedience, does 
this " deftroy at once fubmiftion 3nd authority ? " If fo, fince, 
even by the confejfton cf Independents, this is all that is claimed 
by Prefby terians, as far at Icaft as their fyjtern is concerned, there is 
no more tyrannical authority or improper fubje&ion, notwith- 
ftanding all their afTertions, among the one than among the 
other. It feems frrange, befides, that the permiffion which 
is granted by Prefbyterians to their members, to examine 
thefe dercrees, and fatisfy themfeives as to their propriety or 
impropriety, ihouid be confidered by Independents as completely 
nullifying the authority of the rulers and the fubmiflion of the 
people. While no one is compelled to admit thefe decrees before 
examination and conviction, is not every one told, as in an Inde- 
pendent church, that if, upon inquiry, he will not obey thefe 
decrees, he cannot enjoy the privilege of memberfhrp ? And 
where this is announced, however extenfive the liberty of inquiry 
which is permitted by Prefbyterian rulers to their members, and 
though they do not force them to admit their decrees or remain in 
their communion, any more than is done by the majority to the 
minority in Independent congregations, will it follow from this, 
that the authority of the one and the fubmifucn of the other are 
deftroyed by fuch privileges t 



C 45 ] 



LETTER III. 

SIR, 

In the preceding Letter I have attempted to fhew, that 
an authoritative power is not only exercifed in general 
by the rulers of the church in every party, but is their 
juft prerogative from the united evidence of reafon and 
fcripture. It follows naturally, under our fecond 
divifion, to examine who are the perfons that are to be 
inverted with this power in a particular congregation, 
whether the members in general, as fome Independents 
explicitly, and all other Independents indirectly affirm, 
or only a few, denominated elders, to whom, according 
to the Prefbyterian fcheme, the exercife of government 
is exclulively committed ? 

Here, indeed, it is but juftice to remark, that there is 
a certain pre-eminence, in point of power, which is 
granted by Independents to their elders or pallors. It 
is their province, they allow, to fit as prefidents in the 
meetings of their churches, and preferve order ; to pre- 
pare the bufinefs which is to be the fubjeft of difcuflion 
for being laid before the members, and ftate the decifion 
which appears to them moil: confonant to the mind of 
God ; and after the members have finally determined, to 
announce that determination, and to require fubmiflion to 
it from the various perfons connected with their focieties. 
If a cafe, moreover, occurs, where the number of voters 
on each fide of a queftion happens to be equal, they 
fubmit the point to the vote of their elder who prefides 
at the time. * In all other refpeds, however, their power 
is the fame with that of even the lowed members of the 
church *. 

* Some Independents indeed have aflerted with Glafs, that as 
the elders are furniflied with fuperior gifts for reprefenting the 
authority of Chrift in his word, and with more fpi ritual wifdom 



4 6 



Letter III. 



But to admit the members, in general, of a church to 
an equality of power with thofe who are nominally inved- 
ed with the rule, appears to be improper for the follow- 
ing reafons. 

In the i ft place, Mod of the members of a church 
are commonly unqualified for the exercife of fuch power \ 
and to fuppofe that Jefus, the King of Zion, has war* 
ranted thofe whom he has not qualified to exercife this 
authority is worfe than contradictory. But that the greater 
part of the members of a church are not fo qualified, 
Mr. Ewing, as was remarked, has already acknowledged 
in the moil decided terms. He grants that fuch is the 
date of the people, that a few of the mod active fpirit 
and readied elocution will ufually be able to fway a con- 
gregation ; and that fuch is the collected ignorance of 
the brethren, and fuch their collected infirmities and 
corruption, that it would be extremely dangerous to the 
CRufe of truth, and of Chridian liberty, to make every 
thing that ought to be done, even though trivial and 
obvious, wait for difcuffion in full affembly. And this 
reprefentation unquedionably accords with fact. How 
many are there, in every congregation, who, though un- 
doubtedly attached to the caufe of Chrid, and though 

to apply it to the conference, they are entitled to fuperior power 
in the church. But is it not evident, that if their power refults 
from their gifts and not from their office, and is to be proportioned 
to the degree cf them which they are fuppofed to podefs, every 
memler who is believed to have equal qualifications, mud be 
entitled alfo to an equality of power ; and every member who is 
imagined to have fuperior wifdom, and whofe labours as a pallor 
are not needed by the church, muft have a right even to an in- 
fluence fuperior to that of her ciders and nominal rulers in all 
their determinations? Befides, whatever may be the gifts and 
ments of the elders, as their propofals are fubjetted to the 
opinion and vote of the members at large, before they can be 
confidered as cecifions binding upon the church, all that fupe- 
riority of power, which in profeffion and title they attribute to 
the elders, mud be completely annihilated. 



Letter III. 



47 



fo far acquainted with the doctrines of his gofpel as 
feems neceffary to falvation, are perfons of very feeble 
powers, and very limited information ! Are there not 
many among them, who, in the language of fcripture, 
are weak, as well as others who are flrong ; many who are 
but babes and children in Chrift, as well as others who are 
fathers ? Nay, it will perhaps be found upon a candid fur- 
vey, that the majority of thofe who are received as members 
even in the beft regulated churches, though they underftand 
fo much of the doctrines of the gofpel as entitles them, if 
attended by a correfpondent practice, to the privilege of 
communion, are, in fome meafure at leaft, of this 
description. The original faculties of many of them are 
weak : the degree of culture which they have received 
in youth is comparatively fcanty : from the attention 
which is requilite to their fecular employments, they can 
find but little time in their future life for intellectual 
improvement ; and even that little, if they are men of 
piety, is almoft entirely devoted to the inftruftion of 
their families, or the acquisition of fuch knowledge as is 
fubfervlent merely to their perfonal religion. Whatever, 
in fhort, may be the attainments of others, are there 
not many among them, whom, though you could not 
exclude from the table of the Lord on account of any 
defect in their piety, you would not intruft with a very 
inferior ihare in the management even of your tem- 
poral affairs? Are there not many to be found among 
them, to whom, though men of the moil amiable cha- 
racters, you could not commit even the lower! offices in 
the government of the Mate, or the guardianfhip fimply of 
your external intererts, where no extraordinary knowledge 
or wifdom was required ? Can you fuppofe then for a 
moment, that the King of Zion has conftituted fuch 
perfons the governors of his church ? Can you believe 
that he has appointed every fuch member, however weak, 
who has a right, from the evidences of his faving know* 



48 Letter III. 

ledge, and child-like holinefs, to the facrament of the 
fupper, to be a judge alfo in the moil important and 
difficult matters which regard the deareft interefts of his 
people ? Nay, is it poffible to admit, as muft evidently 
be the cafe upon the Independents fcheme, that though 
the majority of the members of a particular congregation be of 
this defcription, he has committed to them the power of 
judging refpecting every matter the moll dubious and 
momentous that concerns the mod valuable rights of their 
brethren ; and that this plan is more conducive to the 
promotion of truth, and the adminiftration of equal and 
impartial juftice, than that which veils this power in a 
few of the wifell and mod enlightened of the members 
together with the teachers ? 

It is of importance dill farther to be remarked, that 
ftrongly as this difficulty appears to militate againft the 
fcheme of Independency in the prefent age, it mull be 
much more formidable, if we attend to the church at a more 
early period, or in a lefs favourable fituation. If even in our 
own country, where the means of information have fo 
long and fo plentifully been enjoyed by all, very few are 
qualified to be ecclefiaftical rulers, muft not the number 
of thefe in the primitive ages, when they had juft 
emerged from the fuperftition of Judaifm or the darknefs 
of Heathenifm, and were in fome meafure fhackled by 
their former prejudices — when the opportunities alfo of 
general knowledge were much lefs abundant, and when 
the copies of the fcriptures, from their ignorance of print- 
ing, were both lefs numerous, and few but the paftors of 
the church could read them — muft not the number, I 
fay, of thofe who were qualified to be ecclefiaftical rulers 
at that period have been greatly more limited ? And if 
even among ourfelves, fo few are fitted for this arduous 
work, mould the gofpel be propagated in Pagan coun- 
tries, as among the CafFres, or inhabitants of O'why'hee 
or Otaheite, would not the individuals who would be 



Letter III. 



49 



found, in their different congregations, capable of judg- 
ing upon every point of do&rine or government, how- 
ever difficult, be much lefs numerous ? Every Caffre or 
Hottentot however, upon the Independent fcheme, who 
feemed to have as much knowledge as is neceffary for 
falvation, and was enabled to exhibit a correfponding 
practice, would be recognized in effect as a ruler of the 
church ; and to the judgment and vote of an affembly of 
fuch men, would every propofal of their elders, however 
fuperior in knowledge, neceffarily be fubje&ed, before they 
could be adopted and a&ed upon in their congregations *. 

adly, It feems clearly to be taught in fcripture, that 
the power of ruling, whether by perfuafion and advice, 
or by minifterial authority, is committed to fome only, 
and not to all the members of the church indiscriminately. 
u Salute all them that have the rule over you," fays 
Paul to the Hebrews (Heb. xiii. 24.), " and all the 
" faints." Now, as we have already proved that the 
word which is here tranflated rulers, mod probably £g- 
nifies, not merely prefidents or governors by advice and 
perfuafion, but authoritative rulers, is it not a natural 
confequence from the phrafeology in this paffage, that 
as the faints are here diftinguifhed from their rulers, 

* How would Meflrs. Ewing or Little relifli the fubmi/fion of 
all their meafures to the cognizance of fuch a court? Or, if 
paftors of congregations, like thofe mentioned by Paul, Heb. v. 1%. 
(and if there were fuch congregations then, there may be many 
fimilar to them now), who, while they might have been teachers, 
needed to be taught again what were the firft principles of the 
oracles of God ; if paflors, I fay, of fuch congregations, would they 
be willing that every point, however difficult and important, mould 
be fubje&ed to their judgment, and determined by their vote? 
In Prefbytery, however, though there was not one of a congre- 
gation fitted to be an elder, to afiift the paftor in the government 
of the church, this want could be fupplied by having recourfe to 
the minifters of other churches met as a clafUcal court of review, 
an expedient which is utterly impracticable to Independents. 

E 



jq Letter III. 

every Chriftian member is not entitled to be fuch a 
ruler ? Or, if it mean fimply, as Independents allege, 
perfons who are to govern by advice and perfuafion, is 
it not equally plain from it, that every faint is not to be 
fuch a governor * ? " God," fays the fame Apoftle 
(i Cor. xii. 28.), " hath fet fome in the church, firft, 
" apoftles ; fecondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after 
" that miracles ; then gifts of healing, helps, govern- 
** ments" — Here it is neceffary to remark, that in the 
whole of this context, from the 12th verfe, the Apoftle 
is fpeaking of the church of Chrift under the emblem 
of his body, and affirms that in it there is a variety of 
offices adapted to the comfort and convenience of the 
whole, as in the natural body there is a variety of mem- 
bers, each of which is neceffary to its happinefs, and all 
of which are eflential to its beauty. This variety of 
members, in the natural body, he afferts to be a proof 
of the Creator's wifdom, and contends that it is not only 
beneficial to the interefts of the whole, but that fuch is 
the dependence of one member upon another, that none 
of them has a right to look down with contempt upon 
the lefs honourable members. " For the body is not 
* ( one member," fays he (ver. 14.), " but many. If 
66 the foot mall fay, Becaufe I am not the hand, I am 

* Glafs and other Independents tranflate the word l r\yiy.Qn; 9 
which is rendered in our Bibles rulers, guides. This however, as 
was before evinced, is contrary to its ufual acceptation in the 
New Teftament, where it generally fignifies rulers or governors. 
Befides, how could this term, upon the principles of Independents, 
if it fignifies merely guides who had a right only to advife, be 
applied exclufively to the elders of the church ? As the members 
indifcriminately, according to them, have a right to advife as 
well as the elders, nay, as the opinion of the former may be 
adopted occallonally by the congregation while that of the latter 
js reje&ed and fet afide, have not the members frequently an 
equal, if not a fnperior title to this name, of being guides to their 
£ninifters or elders ? 



JLetter lit <t 

« not of the body, is it therefore not of the body ? 
« And if the ear fhall fay, Becaufe I am not the eye, I 
" am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body ? 
" If the whole body were an eye, where were the hear- 
" ing ? if the whole were hearing, where were the fmell- 
" ing ? But now hath God fet the members in the body, 
M as it hath pleafed him. And if they were aH one 
" member, where were the body ? But now are they 
" many members, yet but one body. And the eye 
" cannot fay to the hand, I have no need of thee ; nor, 
" again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you, £sV." 
After which he informs us (ver. 27.), that believers are 
the body of Chrift ; and obfervesy that in this body 
(ver. 28.) God hath fet a variety of offices for its edifi- 
cation, as ftriking, and diflinft, and neceffary, as the 
different members of the natural body. Thefe offices he 
enumerates, and mentions among them, firft, " apoftles ;" 
fecondarily, " prophets ;" thirdly, " teachers then 
" miracles," /. e. as is plain from ver. 29. workers of 
miracles ; then " gifts of healing," u e. as is evident 
from the 30th verfe, perfons who have the gifts of heal- 
ing ; then " helps," i. e. perfons who are helps ; and 
then " governments," *. e. perfons who are governors. 
Now, as he himfelf remarks, in flating this comparison 
(ver. 17. 18.), that every member of the natural body is 
not an eye, nor an ear, nor endowed by its Creator with 
the fenfe of fmelling, is it not equally inconteftable that 
when he alfo tells us, that in the church of Chrift, which 
is his body, there is a diverfity of offices no lefs ftriking, 
and that God hath fet in it only fome governments or 
governors, every member of that church cannot be en- 
titled to the privilege of Leing a governor, whether this 
governor is to rule, as Independents fay, by advice and 
perfuafion, or, as Prefbyterians contend, by the exercife 
of authoritative though fubordinate power? On the 
whole, is it not manifeft, that if the Apoftle denies ia 
Ez 



52 Letter III. 

the 29th verfe, that all were to be apoftles, becaufe he 
had faid in the 28th verfe, that only fome were to be 
apoftles ; and that all were to be prophets, becaufe God 
hath fet in the church only fome to be prophets ; and 
that all were to be teachers, becaufe he had faid before 
that only fome were to be teachers ; is it not alfo mani- 
feft upon the very fame principle, that as he had faid 
before too, that God had fet in the church only fome go- 
vernments or governors, all who are members of Chrift's 
fpiritual body are not to be admitted to be governors 
in his church, whatever may be the nature and degree of 
that power which thefe governors mould exercife ? 

Is it affirmed, in anfwer to this, according to the 
ideas of fome Independents, that the Apoftle, when 
fpeaking here of governments, intends not an office, but 
limply a gift or qualification for government, and that 
no argument of courfe, for excluding the members of the 
church in general from being ecclefiaftical rulers, can 
be deduced from its being faid, that " God hath fet in 
u the church only fome governments ?" We reply, that 
the argument againft this firft principle of Independency 
feems equally conclufive, whether the Apoftle is fpeaking 
of an office, or of a gift ; for, if he intends not an office, 
but merely a gift, will it not equally follow upon their mode 
of reafoning, that fince thofe alone are to rule in the 
church on whom God has bellowed qualifications or 
gifts for government, and fince, by their own confeffion, 
it is here declared that he has bellowed thefe gifts only 
upon fome, all cannot be entitled to be rulers in his 
church ? Befides, that the Apoftle is here fpeaking of an 
office, and not fimply of endowments, appears, among 
other things, from the original word here tranflated " fet" 
or " conftituted ,, in the church, which always, in fuch 
a connection as this, when the cafe admits it, denotes 
the appointment of perfons to an office. It is fo under- 
ftood in this very paffage, when it is faid, that God hath 



Letter III. 53 

fet in the church, fome apoftles, and fome prophets, and 
fome teachers ; and fince by governments, as was before 
attempted to be proved, is here intended governors, there 
appears to be no reafon for underftanding it in a different 
fenfe when applied to them. It is the fame word too 
which is ufed (Ads xx. 28.) to exprefs the appointment 
of the Ephefian elders, and not merely their gifts, to the 
official overfight of that Chriftian church : u Take heed 
" therefore unto yourfelves, and to all the flock, over the 
" which the Holy Ghoft hath made" (e&to), or fet, 
or appointed " you overfeers and is the very word which 
is employed (2 Tim. i. 11.) to denote the appointment 
of. the Apoftie Paul to his office : " Whereunto I am 
" appointed (sts&j*) a preacher, and an apoftie, and a 
teacher of the Gentiles.'' Is it contended, moreover*, 
that even allowing that an office is here intended by 
governments, it is deacons who are referred to ? To 
this it is anfwered, that the Apoftie feems already to 
have mentioned thefe under the name of helps ; and that, 
at any rate, it is not the province of deacons, as fuch> to 
govern, but merely to ferve tables, a meaning undoubt- 
edly too limited and inadequate for the ftrong word 
which is here ufed by the Apoftie to fignify governments. 
Or is it alleged f , that admitting the word to iignify 
properly ecclefiaftical rulers, what is here intended by it 
may have now ceafed, as well as workers of miracles, 
perions endowed with the gift of healing and of tongues, 
and apoftles and prophets, who are mentioned along with 
them ? To this it is anfwered, that even upon the prin- 
ciples of Independents themfelves, while miracles have 
ceafed, and tongues and prophecies have failed, govern- 
ment will for ever continue in the church : and that if 
we' are to infer, from its being here joined with the gifts 
of miracles and tongues, that it mult now be laid aftde, 

* See Chandler on Joel, p. 150. 

f See Dr. Ifaac Watts on the Chriftian Church, p, 73. 

£3 



54 Letter. III. 

we contend that It muft be laid afide by Independents 
well as by Prefbyterians ; and upon the fame principle it 
may be proved, that fince teachers alfo are here mentioned 
along with them, the office of a teacher mould no longer 
be continued in the church of Chrift. 

Upon a review then of the Apoftle's reafoning in the 
whole of this paffage, I feel difpofed to conclude that 
all are no more now entitled to be rulers, than they were 
entitled formerly to be apoftles or prophets, or paftors 
and teachers ; and that, in Chrift's fpiritual body, all are 
no more authorized to be governors, as they are obvioufly 
warranted upon the Independent plan, than, in the na- 
tural body, each of the members is to be an eye, or an 
ear, or a fenfe of fmelling. This reafoning, I appre- 
hend, is no lefs conclufive againft admitting them to 
rule, even upon the fchertu of Independents, by advice and 
ferfuajion, than, upon the fcheme of Prefbyterians, by 
the exercife of limited fubordinate authority. 

In the 3d place, The terms employed in fcripturc to 
exprefs the various characters and relations of members 
and their elders, feem alfo to intimate that every Chrif- 
tian is not warranted to claim an equal fhare of eccie- 
fiaflical government. While the rulers, as has been 
obferved, are diftinguiftied in the New Teftament by the 
ilrongeft titles expreffive of the office and authority of 
governors, the members, as has been faid, are pointed 
out at the fame time as governed by them, and are 
enjoined to obey them. But if every Chrtftian among 
thofe who are governed (the point of presiding as mode- 
rator in their affemblies, and announcing the decifion, 
alone excepted) be as much a governor as the governors 
themfelves, how can the diftinction which we have men- 
tioned be preferved ? Muft not all be governors, and all 
be governed f and muft not the kingdom of Jefus be dif- 
tinguifhed by a circumftance not only peculiar to itfelf, 
but which would be confidered as impolitic and contra- 



Letter III, 55 

diftory in every wife and well-regulated human govern- 
ment ; namely, that all its fubjecls mould not only be 
fubjects, but rulers, and as much, or rather more entitled, 
on account of their number, to the character of ruler3 
than the governors themfelves ? While the former, too, 
are affirmed ( A&s xx. 28.) to be authoritative overfeers 
of the church, as the captains of hundreds and thoufands 
were of their men *, and as the rulers of cities were of 
the inhabitants of thefe cities f, the members of the 
church are faid to be officially overfeen by them in govern- 
ment as well as in doctrine. But if every member, as 
Independents affert, be not only as much an overfeer of 
the church at large as the overfeers themfelves, but, as 
was before evinced, from their fuperior number, poflelTed 
of a far greater ihare of the overfight — nay, if, as was 
alfo noticed, they can completely overturn the propofah 
of the overfeers, and dictate to them what they are to 
receive and obey, is not the diftin&ion which we have 
ftated completely deftroyed ? and are not all not only 
overfeers as well as overfeen, but are not the very men 
who are appointed to be overfeen, more worthy of being 
dignified with this honourable name, than the men who 
are officially characterized by it ? While the former are 
defcribed as the Jlock, the latter are reprefented in fcrip- 
ture as the pafiors, a name often beftowed upon authori- 
tative civil rulers and officers %, and are enjoined to per- 

* See the paflages produced, Letter II. where this very word is 
applied to them. 

f See 1 Maccab. chap. i. where this fame term is fo ufed ; 
Kctt S7roivi<r2v i7ri?y-07rov$ i7Ti 7TxvtU Tov haov, " And made them 
14 overfeers of the whole people." 

\ See Ifaiah xliv. 38. where it is given to Cyrus, king of 
Perfia ; a Sam. v. 2, where it is bellowed upon David, becaufe, as 
a military officer under Saul, he had led out and brought in Ifrael ; 
and to the judges of Ifrael, I Chron. xvii. 6. whom God is there 
faid to have commanded to feed or govern his people. See alfp 
Homer's Iliad {ajftm, where the common name for Agamemnon, 



56 Letter III. 

form the part of pallors to the church of God ; /. e. not 
only to feed them with wholefome doctrine, but alfo to 
govern them as a fhepherd does his flock*. But if each 
of the flock, as mull be the cafe upon the Independent 
plan, is to govern not only the other members of the 
flock, but even the pajlors themfelves, as much as they 
are to govern the members, how can this difference of 
character be maintained ? Is not every fheep in the 
flock of Chrift, according to this fcheme, not only a 
Jheepy but a pajlor / nay, are they not letter entitled, 
upon the principles of Independents, as already mention- 
ed, to the name of paftors, than thofe who are in 
(cripture diftinguifhed by that appellation ? Since, then, 
it feems impoflible to allow the members of the church 
in general the power of ruling, without making them at 
once all governors as well as all governed, all overfeers as 
well as all overfecn, and all pajlcrs as well as all Jheep ; 
nay, fince, from their fuperior number, which is often 
twenty or a hundred times greater than that cf the mini- 
flers, it would make them more really governors, and 
overfeers, and paftors, than the governors, and overfeers, 
and paftors themfelves ; the plan of Independency, which 
is attended with fuch confequences, muft certainly be 
inadmifiible, and we are bound to conclude that believers 
in general are not to govern in the church of God. 

the leader and commander of the Grecian hoft, is Totpqy A##y, 
fhepherd of the people. 

* Compare Matth. ii. 6. where the very word which is employed 
in Acls xx. 28. to fignify the paftoral overfight of the elders at 
Ephefus over their members, is ufed to denote the paftoral conduct 
of Jefus, not only as teaching but ruling his people. " Out of thee,'"' 
fays that Evangelift refpe£ting the Saviour, " fhali come a Governor 
" that fhali rule, ?ro; ( «£v£<, (hall govern as a Jbepberd my people 
" Ifrael." Confult, likewife, Rev. ii. 27. xii. 5. and xix 15. 
where the fame word which is ufed to exprefs what the elders at 
Ephefus were authorized to perform as the fhepherds or paftors of 
the flock, fignifles to rule ) as in other places it mesns to feed by 
inftruc'tion. 



Letter. III. 



57 



It is not enough to tell us, that, at leaft upon your 
plan of adminiftration, the members of the church are 
not confidered as rulers when they exprefs their fenti- 
ments upon any queftion, but are fimply afked, for the 
fatisfaction of the elders, by whom any meafure Is pro- 
pofed, to deliver their opinion, and ilate their vote. 
Nor is it enough to fay, that they do not receive the 
appellation of rulers, if, in their capacity of church- 
members, they actually poffefs and exercife an authority 
at leail equal, if not fuperior to that of the rulers them- 
felves. That 'fuch authority is pofTeifed by them, ap- 
pears to be incontrovertible. Is not the judgment of 
the members, as Mr. Ewing informs us (p. 36.), to be 
taken in every queftion, if a matter of importance, and 
are not all of them indifcriminately admitted to vote ? 
You yourfelf too declare (p. 30.), that " nothing is to 
€t be done without the confent of the members." Mr, 
Little, alfo, in his Letter to Mr. Donald, one of the 
members excommunicated from the church in Perth, tells 
him, " that the church were to conjider his cafe, and that 
" of £he other members who were excommunicated with 
11 him." (See his Letter, as inferted at large in the 
Narrative before mentioned.) And when that cafe was 
confidered, it is afferted by thefe perfons who were thus 
excluded, and not denied by Mr. Little, that the roll 
containing the names of the members of the church was 
called, and their votes marked, before the deed of the 
elders was viewed as ratified. Does not the adoption or 
reje&ion of any meafure depend entirely upon a majority 
of them? and if fuch a majority are pleafed to fet afide 
any propofal of the elders or nominal rulers, will it not 
be fet afide ? and if they are difpofed to vote for an op- 
pofite opinion, will it not be carried in oppofition to 
their rulers ; and be binding upon their rulers, as much 
as upon any of the members, if they remain in their 
fociety ? This, I believe, cannot be denied. I contend 



58 



Letter. III. 



therefore, that even upon your plan of Independency, a 
well as in every other which grants a power of deliberat 
ing and voting to your members at large, though you 
deny them the name and title of rulers, and allow them 
only, as you exprefs it, a power of confent, they enjo] 
not only as much, but more of the real authority of rulers 
than thofe to whom, according to the words of your 
brother, the government of your churches is committee 
nominally; and confequently, that your fcheme in parti- 
cular, as well as that of Independents in general, feems 
juftly chargeable with the inconfiftencies which have 
been mentioned, or may yet be charged upon it, from 
the word of God. 

4thly, Terms are ufed in fcripture expreffive of the 
duties of Chriftian members to their ecclefiaftical rulers, 
which appear no lefs clearly to intimate that Chriftian3 
in general are not to be governors in the church of God. 
They are required, for inftance (i ThefT. v. 13.), to 
know their rulers, or thofe who are over them in the Lord ; 

e. to acknowledge them as fuch. Now, as the word here 
rendered thofe who were over them in the Lord, as has 
been already remarked, means not merely thofe who 
prefided in their afTemblies, but authoritative rulers, who 
had a right to deliver decifions in the name of Chrift 
and demand their obedience, I cannot fee how this duty 
could be enjoined upon the members in general, if all of 
them in reality, though not in name, were as much gover- 
nors as their rulers or prefbyters. Every Chriftian mem* 
her, upon the Independent fcheme, being as much a 
ruler as any of the elders, would require to be acknow- 
ledged as fuch equally with them ; nay, the majority of 
the rulers, on this plan, being members, and of courfe 
their influence being greater, it appears as Jit, and perhaps 
more con/jftent, that the elders mould be called to acknow- 
ledge them as rulers, than that they mould be enjoined to 
acknowledge the elders. Not only are the members 



Letter IIL 



59 



commanded in general to acknowledge their rulers as 
fiich, but to ejleem them very highly in love for their 
work's fake, in ruling, if they barely ruled ; as well 
as in preaching, if they alfo preached. The original 
words, which denote the degree of efteem that is due to 
them, are mod uncommonly exprefiive, Wg£ vtmywfv ; 
#. e. literally rendered, " above the greateft abundance, or 
" exceeding exceeding highly " But how could Chriftians 
in general be required to render to their elders fuch an 
extraordinary refpecl, if all that diftinguifhed them from 
common members were merely that they were to be 
prefidents in the affemblies of the church, while an equal 
fhare of rule belongs to every member in particular ; 
nay, while it is certain that, as the judgment and votes 
of the members in every queftion are to fix the decifion, 
the power of government is chiefly in them ? Are not 
the members, at leaft as far as government is concerned, 
upon the Independent plan, better entitled to this 
exceedingly exceedingly high efteem, for the effects of good 
government, than the elders them/elves ? Farther, Chriftians 
are ordered (i Tim. v. 17.) to reckon the elders who 
rule well, on account of their ruling, worthy even of double 
honour, and to give them that honour. But if every 
member is to be a ruler of the church, as well as the 
elders, will it not follow from this, that if any of the 
members rule well, double honour mould be granted to 
them as well as to the elders ; and if all the members rule 
well, will it not equally follow, that all the members mould 
give to all the members double honour, becaufe they rule 
well ? To talk however of all the members of a church 
giving to all the members, if they ruled well, double 
honour, is evidently abfurd. And to confider the 
Apoftle as requiring honour from the members of the 
church to the elders, when, by this fcheme, they have 
#n equal, if not a fuperior fhare of ecclefiaftic power to 



(So Letter III. 

thefe very elders, feems a palpable contradi&ion. Honour 
can be rendered only by an inferior to a fuperior, and 
double honour can be given only by one who is very infe- 
rior to one who is greatly fuperior. But in an Inde- 
pendent congregation, which admits every member to an 
equal mare in the government, no fuch inferiority can 
exift. Or, if the word here tranflated honour, fignifies 
not only honour, but maintenance, as Guyfe and other 
Independents have maintained ; and if it be afferted from 
this paflage, that the elders who rule well, are entitled, if 
they need it, to double maintenance ; it will alfo follow, that 
if every member is to be an ecclefiaftical ruler, he would 
be entitled alfo, if he ruled well, to double maintenance* 
This, however, is no lefs abfurd ; for where could the 
church be found, whofe funds would admit of fuch an 
expenditure ? In fine, Chriftians are commanded, as was 
remarked, to obey their rulers (Heb. xiii. 17.) ; i.e. not 
merely to be fubjeft to them as one Chriftian is to an- 
other, but to render an obedience fuch as inferiors do to 
fuperiors. But if, according to the principles of Inde- 
pendency, every member is to have an equal voice in 
every determination with thofe who are elders, and if he is 
in reality a ruler, whatever he may be in name, as well as 
they; who are the perfons that are to perform this com- 
mand ? 

If thofe only who are diftincl: from the rulers can obey 
them, then, according to your plan, none can comply 
with this apoftolic injunction, becaufe all are rulers; and 
confequently we are reduced to this abfurd fuppofition, 
that the Apoftle commands the rulers to obey themfelves. 
This manifeft abfurdity is equally fuppofed, whatever be 
the kind of obedience that is enjoined, whether it be 
compliance with perfuafion, or fubmifiion to authority. 
As it therefore appears impoffible to explain thefe ex- 
hortations confiftently, if every member has in reality, 



Letter IIL 



6t 



though perhaps not in name, an equal title with elders 
to rule the church, the principle which fuch contra- 
dictions fuppofe, muft be rejected ; and, by confequence, 
it muft ftill be affirmed that every individual Chriflian 
has not a right to be a ruler in the church of God. 



LETTER IV. 

SIR, 

In addition to the arguments which have already been 
urged in refutation of your fcheme, there are others, 
from which its contrariety to the facred oracles is no lefs 
apparent. I therefore obferve in the 

5th place, That the keys, which are the emblem of fub- 
ordinate authority in the kingdom of Jefus, are repre- 
fented in fcripture as delivered by him to the minifters, 
and not to the members. 

With regard to the import of the celebrated paflage 
in Matth. xvi. where Jefus is faid to have bellowed upon 
Peter thefe keys of his kingdom, much diverfity of fen- 
timent has obtained. Papifts contend that it includes a 
grant of univerfal fuprernacy over the church on earth to 
Peter, as the reprefentative of the Saviour, which grant 
they fuppofe to be transferred to their popes, who, accord- 
ing to them, are the fuccefibrs of this Apoftle. But 
even though they could prove that their popes were the 
legitimate fuccefibrs of Peter (in proving which they have 
as yet uniformly failed), this pafiage contains no fuch 
grant to them ; for, in other places, the reft of the Apoftles 
are pointed out as inverted with an equality of power, 
and as even with (landing him to the face on a particular 
occafion, becaufe he was to be blamed. Epifcopalians 
allege that he reprefented their bifhops, to whom, upon 
vheir fcheme, the government of the church is chiefly 

F 



62 



Letter IV. 



committed. But It is plain that no fuch blfliops as 
theirs are authorized by fcripture, which points out to us 
a plurality of bifhops or overfeers in many primitive 
churches (fee Philip, i. i. Acts xx. 17. 28, &c*) ; 
and informs us at the fame time, that by thefe we are to 
underftand elders or minifters, who preached and ruled 
(fee alfo for this, Adls xx. 1 Peter v* 1, 2, 3. 
Independents affert, that here Peter reprefents believers 
In general, to whom, according to them, the government 
of the church of Jefus is intrufted. The reafons on 
which they bnild this interpretation are thefe : That^the 
gift of the keys was conferred on Peter, upon his con- 
feffing Jefus to be the Son of God ; and, confequently, 
fhould be conferred on all who make this confefiion : 
and the name Peter or Rock, which was given to this 
Apoftle upon this occafion, belongs, they fay, equally 
to all believers, who are, no lefs than he, fpiritual {tones, 
built upon the fame holy and bleffed foundation. It 
feems probable however, that the name Peter, or the 
Rock, as bellowed upon this Apoftle, is not the fame 
with that which is elfewhere given to believers in gene- 
ral, when they are denominated Stones, and living 
Stones * ; nor does it follow that becaufe they poffefs, 
in common with him, one part of the honour which he is 
here declared to have received, they are entitled to the 
other alfo. The gift of the keys is undoubtedly very dif- 
ferent from that of being a Jlone built up by God's Spirit 
en the true foundation, and the enjoyment of the one can 
never neceffarily imply the pofTeflion of the other. Be- 
fides, though it fhould be conceded, that the grant of 
the keys was made to Peter becaufe he confeffed Chrift 
to be the Son of God, it cannot be inferred, on any 
confiftent principle, that every one who confefTes him is 
to receive that honour. We know that this Apoftle, 



* Sec Whitby on the place. 



Letter IV. 



6 3 



on another memorable occafion (fee John xxi.), when 
he not only profeffed his faith, but his love to the Sa- 
viour, was anew authorized by him to be a preacher and 
an Apoftle*; but there are few, I believe, who, from 
this circumftance, would conclude with a celebrated 
minifter, " that every man (however weak) who can lay 
" his hand on his heart, and fay he loves Chrift, has 
" Chrift's call and warrant to preach the gofpel." But 
if few would adduce this as a proof that all who are 
poflefTed of a fimilar affeclion mould have the office of a 
minj/ler, on what principle can it be demonftrated, that, 
though Peter was inverted by Jefus with the office of a 
ruler on his confeffing his faiths all who are pofTefled of 
Jimilar faith mould have a fimilar fundion ? Nor will the 
nature of the deed itfelf authorize it ; for by confeffing 
Jefus, and by being built up on him as a living ftone, 
a perfon becomes merely a member of his family, and 
a fubject of his kingdom. But is it a legitimate in- 
ference, that becaufe a perfon becomes a fubjeEt of his 
kingdom, and a member of his houfe, he is advanced in 
confequence of it to the office of a Jteivard^ to whofe 
power, as exprefTed by the ufual badge which he anciently 
f wore (a golden key carried on his fhoulder), there is an 
evident allufion in the phrafeology before us ? Were this 
the cafe, it would be a natural confequence that every 
perfon who becomes a believer, and a living {tone, would 
j be conflituted alfo a Jieward in the houfe of God, to rule 
i and govern it ; and in the family of Chrift, all would be 
Jiewards, as well as governed. But if all were forwards, 
j where were thofe who mould be governed by them ? 
I Though therefore Peter, on this remarkable occafion, 
when a clearer difcovery was to be made by Jefus of his 
character and kingdom than hitherto was done, received 
from him the affurance that he had committed to him 



* " Feed my (heep ; feed my lambs." 

F 2 



64 Letter IV. 

the keys of his kingdom, and advanced him to the ho- 
nour of being a ruler in it, it will not follow that every 
Chrijiian, who believes and confefies him on every occa- 
lion, is to receive that dignity. Does it follow that if a 
prince, at a particular time, to teftify his approbation 
of the views entertained of his character and government 
by one of his fubjecls, advances him to fpecial honour, 
every one of his fubjec/ts who exprefTes fimiJar views, at 
every future period, and on every occaJion> fhould attain a 
iimilar honour ? Neither, therefore, of the arguments 
which have been urged, evince that Peter reprefented be- 
lievers in general, when he received at this time the keys of 
the kingdom ; and the obvious meaning of the exprefiions 
employed to denote this truft, which plainly refer to the 
office of a fteward, feems totally incompatible with 
this idea. 

It is indeed faid (Matth. xviii.), that " whatfoever 
51 church binds on earth," agreeably to the will of Jefus, 
4t mall be bound in heaven ; and that whatfoever they 
" loofe on earth, mail be loofed in heaven ;" which is 
the fame language that accompanies the gift of the keys, 
to Peter (chap, xvi.) : but, I truft, it will afterwards ap- 
pear that we are not here to underftand, by the term 
church, every particular member. On the contrary, we 
know that language almoft exactly iimilar is employed 
by our Saviour, to exprefs the power which he gave t 
his mini/lers, and his mini/lers alone in their official capa 
city. John xx. 21. 23. " Then faid Jefus unto the 
u again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath fent me* 
66 even fo fend I you. Whofe foever fins ye remit, they 
" are remitted unto them ; and whofe foever fins ye retain, 
" they are retained." To fet afide this remark it is not 
fufficient to tell us with fome Independents*, " that, 
" perhaps, this forgiving of fin was equivalent to healing 



* See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 171. 



Letter IV. 



" difeafes, as we know that the Apoftles had the power 
" of healing difeafes conferred on them, and as our 
u Lord declares it to be a proof of authority to forgive 
" fin on earth Matth. ix. 6. The power of healing 
difeafes is never, as far as we recoiled^ reprefented in 
fcripture as equivalent to that of forgiving iniquity ; and 
the Apoftles, in exercifing the former, are never faid to 
have performed the latter. Nay, even in the pafTage 
referred to, when our Saviour is afferted to have healed 
difeafes, this is by no means pointed out as the fame 
with his forgiving Jin, but fimply as an attejlation of 
the truth of what he faid, when he declared that he was 
commifiioned by his heavenly Father to remit fins on 
earth. But will it follow that becaufe this was pro- 
duced as an evidence of the truth of his declaration that 
he was commiflioned to forgive fins, it was equivalent to 
the actual difpenfation of that forgivenefs ? Though the 
miracles of the converfion of water into wine, of the 
multiplication of the loaves, of the reftoration of fight and 
hearing to the blind and deaf, and many fimilar works, 
when performed by our Lord, are adduced as evidences 
that he was, what he profefTed, the only Saviour, will 
it follow that thefe miracles were equivalent to this falva- 
tion which he came to beftow ? It feems plain that the 
power of remitting and retaining fins, mentioned in John, 
is the fame ^vith what is exprefled in Matth. xviii. 18, 
and xvi. 19. by binding an offending, and loojing a peni- 
tent brother, agreeably to a common metaphor in fcrip- 
ture, by which men, when, like Simon Magus, under the 
guilt and the power of fin, are reprefented as fixed in a 
bond ; and when delivered from thefe, as loofed or fet free * . 
Now, this binding or looiing certainly does not mean 

* See alfo Prov. v. 22. " His own iniquities (hail take the 
" wicked himfelf, and he fhali be holden with the cords of his 
" fins," &c. 

F3 



66 



Letter IV. 



the performance of a miracle for the cure of the body of a 
penitent brother, or a refufal to exert that power upon 
one who is obftinate, or the inflicllon of dtfeafe upon one 
who has tranfgrefTed ; for, in that cafe, it would follow 
from Matth. xviii. that the impenitent brother, whofe 
cafe we are called to tell to the church, muft be one 
•who is already difeafed> or upon whom, if he obftinately 
perfift in his fin, difeafe is to be inflicted, and then tooj 
fince this miraculous power has ceafed, the power of 
jurifdi&ion, or of binding and loofing, muft have ceafed 
along <zbitk it. But as none of thefe confequences can 
fafely be admitted, it feems manifeft that the remitting 
and retaining of fins mentioned in John, and the bind- 
ing and loofing fpoken of in Matthew, muft denote the 
exercife only of an ordinary, and not of a miraculous 
power. And farther, as it appears to denote not an extra- 
ordinary but an ordinary power, confifting in that fubor- 
dinate judicial authority to pardon or condemn, which 
thofe only who have the keys of the kingdom committed 
to them are authorized to exercife, it is equally evident 
that it can be veiled in the minifters only, not in the 
private members of the church, ft is never faid to be 
intrufted to the latter, though it is exprefsly affirmed 
(John xx.) to be given to the former ; and in receiving 
this authority they are plainly pointed out under the 
character of ftewards, which is altogether inconfiftent 
with the fuppofition that the keys are committed to the 
members at large, or that they are allbciated with their 
paftors in admin iftering the affairs of the church of 
Chrift. 

To invalidate the argument for the right of the elders 
exclufively to govern in the Chriftian church, which is 
derived from this paflage, many other criticifms have 
been advanced by Independents. Some have fuppofed 
that by the keys of the kingdom which were given to 
Peter, we are to underftand only the key of knowledge, 



Letter IV. 67 

and the honour of firft preaching the truths of the gofpel 
to the Jews and Gentiles. 

In fupport of this they inform us, that there is an evident 
allufion to the cuftom of the Jews, who delivered to their 
Rabbis a key, when invefled with that dignity. This, 
however, is very far from amounting to the binding and 
loafing the guilty on earth, as they were bound and loofed 
in heaven, which is here affirmed to be connected with 
thefe keys, and which undoubtedly muft be an exercife 
of government. And we know that when the fteward 
of the houfe of David, whofe kingdom was certainly a 
type of that of Chrift, had a key delivered to him, it 
implied his being intruded, under the king, with the 
affairs of the kingdom. " It mall come to pafs in that 
" day/' fays Ifaiah (chap. xxii. 20.), " that I will call 
" my fervant Eliakim, the fon of Hilkiah : and I will 
" clothe him with thy robe, and ftrengthen him with thy 
ff girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand, 
" (that of Shebna, who was over the houfe, ver. 15.). 
" And the key of the houfe of David will I lay upon his 
M moulder : he mall open, and none mail fhut ; and he 
u fhall fhut, and none mail open." And we fee likewife 
the fame emblem when applied to our Lord (who tells U3, 
that he fent his Apoftles as his Father had fent him, and 
gave them of the glory which his Father had given him), 
employed to denote authority. " And to the angel of 
f} the church in Philadelphia," fays John (Rev. iii. 7.), 
" write, Thefe things faith he that is holy, he that is 
" true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, 
" and no man fhutteth, and fhutteth, and no man 
" openeth." Now, as in thefe other circumftance3, it 
inconteftably includes the power of government, what- 
ever other idea it may fugged ; and as in the paffage 
before us, it is reprefented as exercifed alfo in relation 
to a kingdom, a,nd is connected with the other expreffive 



68 Letter IV. 

phrafes before fpecified ; ought it not likewife to be fo 
underftood in the prefent inftance ? 

Accordingly, one of our moft refpe&able Englifti In- 
dependents, in his illuftration of various paflages of 
fcripture from Oriental cuftoms, gives the fame inter- 
pretation of this allufion. " As ftewards of a great 
" family, " fays he, " efpecially of the royal houfehold, 
" bore a key, probably a golden one, in token of their 
" office, the phrafe of giving a perfon the key, naturally 
" grew into an expreflion of rairlng him to great power 
" (compare Ifaiah xxii. 22. with Rev. iit. 7.). This was 
" with peculiar propriety applicable to the ftewards of 
" the m) ileries of God : 1 Cor. iv. 1. Peter's opening the 
M kingdom of heaven, as being the ftrft that preached 
" it both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, may be con- 
u fidered as an illuftration of this promife ; but it is 
" more fully explained, by the power of binding and 
" Jooling afterwards mentioned As to the diftinClion 
of the keys into thofe of knowledge, of liberty, and of au- 
thority, by which other Independents endeavour to evade 
this argument, it is altogether fanciful, and not autho- 
rized by the word of God. See the London Minifters 
Divine Right of Prefbytery, laft edition, p. 98. 99 

Selden and Lightfoot, with fome moderns, underftand 
by the binding and loofing, a power merely of declaring 
the doctrines and laws of the gofpel, and not of punifti- 
lng or abfolving in a judicial capacity (fee M'Knight on 
the place) ; and tell us, that thefe terms were ufed by 
the Rabbis, to fignify the lawfulnefs or unlawfulnefs of 
things. Binding, according to them, denoted that a 
thing was bound up, or forbidden to men ; and looftng, 
that it was free, or permitted — and why not fo here ? 
To this, however, it may be replied, that Independents 
themfelves., in genera/, do not allow to their members the 



* Eurder's Oriental Cuftoms, Matth. xvi. 19. 



Letter IV. 



6 9 



power of binding and loofing in this fenfe ; for it is not 
the privilege of the members, as fuel), to preach the laws 
and doctrines of the gofpel. We know, befides, that 
the phrafes of binding and loofing were very commonly- 
employed by the Jewifh Doctors, to fignify not only a 
doclrinal declaration of what was lawful or unlawful, but 
a judicial pumih'mg or abfolving of the excommunicated *. 
The Greeks alfo had a fimilar expreflion relating to 
judicial authority. Thus Stephens quotes from iEfchines 
thefe words, Esr^Jafv rv\ -srpal'y $r$ca fiq AY0H Td irxffotvoftty f 
i. e. " as the perfon accufed was not acquitted or, 
agreeably to the tranflation of the word in Matthew, 
" was not loofed by the firft vote." So alfo, when it is 
faid of Jerufalem (Ifaiah xl. 2.), that " her iniquity is 
" pardoned" (a cafe exactly in point to Matth. xviii. 18. 
where the binding and loofing relate to an offence J, the 
Septuagint renders the words AEAYTAI ctvr^g \ \ucc%Ticc 9 
u her iniquity is loofed f." The Latins, in like manner, 
employed the fame terms, to exprefs acquittal or con- 
demnation by judges in the civil courts, as will be evident 
to any one who confults the w r ritings of Cicero, whofe 
common phrafe for acquittal is " folvere crimine, to loofe 
" from a crime or accufation." In (hort, not only do 
the terms binding and loofing fignify, in facred and pro- 
fane authors, judicially to punim, and pardon, and ac- 
quit, but it feems evident that in this fenfe they ought 
to be underftood in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. 
There, as was remarked, it is an offence that is faid to be 

* See Buxtoif's Lexicon, Chald. Talmud. Rabbin, p. 1410. 

f Thus, likewife (Ecclefiafticus xxviii. 2.), fays the foil of 
Sirach, who was a Jew, " Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that 
" he hath done thee, fo mall thy fins be forgiven thee alfo when 
" thou pray eft;" literally, " fnall be lcofed to thee," ^vfyrovTci;* 
And thus, too, the Septuagint, fpeaking of God's forgiving the 
fin of Job's friends (Job xlii. 9.), fays, that he loofed their 



7 o 



Letter IV. 



bound or loofed ; and left the brother who commits it 
mould be difpofed to difregard the church when they 
exert this power, it is declared that what is thus done on 
earth according to the will of the Saviour, ihall be done 
in heaven alfo. But this binding or loofing of an offence^ 
fiirely, cannot fo properly mean, the declaring it to be 
or not to be an offence, or denouncing the judgments an- 
nexed to it (though this may be included), as, agreeably 
to the common acceptation of the phrafe, the pro- 
nouncing the pardon, or the punifhment — the acquittal, 
or the guilt of the offender. Befides, this binding or 
loofing cannot apply to the preaching of the gofpel, or the 
declaration of its laws ; for it is a fentence in which two 
or three at leaft muft be agreed — which is to be employ- 
ed only after a private remonftrance and admonition, 
before two or three Chriftian brethren, has been tried 
without efFecl:, and — which muft be juftified by the tefti- 
mony of witneffes who have heard the offender vindicate his 
offence, before it is to be pronounced by the church. It is 
difficult, however, to perceive on what principle it could 
be necefTary to call witneffes before the gofpel was preach- 
ed, or the laws of its kingdom were announced ; though 
this was abfolutely effential, if an at! of judicial power 
was to be exercifed. To this power all the circumftances 
mentioned in the paffage eafily apply : we therefore con- 
clude, that it fan&ions the exercife of judicial authority. 

Nor let it be objected with M' Knight, that thefe 
exprefiions are not fufceptible of this meaning, becaufe it 
is not faid, w/jomfoever, but whatfoever ye (hall bind or 
loofe ; for it has been already fhewn, that they are applied 
in the Old Teflament not only to perfons but to things, 
where it is certain that punifhing, or pardoning, was in- 
tended. Thus, when it is faid of Jerufalem (Ifaiah xlii. 
2.), that her iniquity was to be loofed — of Job's friends 
(Job xlii. 9.), that their fins were loofed to them — and of 
thofe who forgive their neighbours (Ecclef, xxviii. 2.}* 



Letter IV. 71 

that their fins mould be loofed — things only are fpoken of; 
and it is not merely a declaration that they were lawful 
or unlawful, but a judicial releafe from the punifhment of 
tranfgreflion. 

From this induction it would therefore appear, that 
the binding and loofing mentioned, reprefent the exercife 
of authoritative judicial power ; and, of confequence, that 
as this power has already been proved to be committed, 
together with the keys of the kingdom, to the minifters, 
and not to the members, the former, as diftinguimed 
from the latter, are the only perfons entitled to the 
exercife of this authority. 



LETTER V. 

SIR, 

As it appears that the various titles chara&eriftic of 
rulers are given to the elders exclufively, fo the highefl 
acls of government and difcipllne feem to be reprefented in 
fcripture as performed by them, and by them alone. 
This I mail now endeavour to prove, and then conclude 
this part of the difcuflion. 

Of the various acr.s which ought to be confidered as 
of the greateft importance in ecclefiaftical government, 
the firft unqu eft ion ably which merits our attention is that 
of the admijfion of members. 

It feems manifeft from the facred oracles, that this 
work is committed exclufively to the paftors of the church, 
and not to them merely as conjoined with the members. 
At the effufion on Pentecoft, for inftance, we are told, 
that in what remained of a Jingle day, after a fermon from 
the Apoftles, about three thoufand fouls were added to the 
church. But how was it poffible that in fo fhort a fpace 
the members at large could meet with the paftors, and 



72 Letter V. 

hear them examined, and exprefs in order their approba- 
tion or difapprobation of the confeflion and character of 
every individual in fuch a multitude ? When Philip went 
down to Samaria, and baptized many, both men and 
women, and when he baptized and received the Ethio- 
pian eunuch as a member of the church, as well as when 
Ananias baptized Paul, though in the city of Damafcus 
where there was a Chriftian church, it is plain that this 
act was performed folely by miniflers, without convening 
or confulting members. While however, in thefe and 
other inftances, both where a church was forming, and, 
as in the example at Jerufalem, where it was already 
formed, the power of admiflion is represented as com- 
mitted to the minifters alone, as far as we recollect there 
is not a fingle inftance in the whole of the New Teftament, 
where perfons were received into the fellowfhip of the 
church after the judgment of members had been afked 
and obtained. It is indeed faid (Acts ix. 26.), that 
" when Saul, after his converfion, came up to Jerufalem, 
(i and aflayed to joined himfelf to the difciples, they 
" were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a 
€C difciple." But here there is no intimation of any 
meeting of the members together with the paftors, to 
confider the propriety of receiving him as a difciple. All 
that is ftated is fimply this — that all of them, both Apoftles 
and members, were afraid that he was not, as he pro- 
fefled, a difciple in reality, but intended to deceive 
them ; and confequently, that as fo general a fear of him 
was entertained by the church, he could not be received 
by thofe whofe prerogative it was to admit him. Accord- 
ingly, we are informed that when he was at laft received, 
it was in confequence of his " being taken and introduced 
" by Barnabas to the ApoJlles" and of their being fatif- 
fied with the account of his converfion and fince- 
rity which was delivered to them by that Chriftian 
minifter, ver. 27, 



Letter V. 73 

Is it objefted, that" though it may be proved from thefe 
examples that minifters may baptize without confuting* 
the church, they cannot admit to any other ordinance, 
or communicate to applicants the full privileges of mem- 
bers, without foliciting and obtaining their approbation I 
I anfwer by demanding in the firft place, whether all 
Independents allow their pallors to receive adults to bap- 
tifm without confulting their churches? whether, in the 
next place, it can be proved from the word of God that 
adults, when baptized, are not entitled to every otner 
Chriftian privilege \ and whether the three thoufand who 
were baptized at Pentecoft are not declared to have been 
added to the church as members (A&S ii. 41.), while it 
is evident that there was not fufficient time for calling the 
members, and interrogating in their prefence each of 
thefe converts, and requefting their judgment on the pro- 
priety of admitting them \ Is it contended, that this 
fcheme is adverfe to the principle of Chriftian liberty, as 
it enables the pallors to iropofe whom they pleafe on 
the communion of the church ? It is replied, that it is 
unjuft to affirm that any pallor of a Prefbyterian church 
is warranted by Prefbytery to exercife fuch a power. 
Certain qualifications are required in the llandards of his 
church before any perfon can be received into fellovvlhip, 
and till he obtains fatisfa&ory evidence that thofe who 
apply to him have thefe qualifications, he cannot law- 
fully receive them*. If, through miftake, an improper 
perfon be occafionally admitted, the members are per- 
mitted to communicate what they know of the applicant 
to the pallors; and if, after remonllrance, he be conti- 
nued in communion, the lowefl individual in the congre- 

* Since writing the above, I have looked into Pardovan, book ii. 
title iv. feci. iv. and find, that by tie conftitut'ion of Prefbyterian 
churches, no minifter, though he may examine, can admit any 
perfon to the privilege of memberfhip, till the whole of his Seflion, 
ss well as himfelf, are fatisfied both as to his knowledge and piety, 

G 



74 



Letter V. 



gatlon is allowed to call thcfe paftors to an account, with 
the whole of their Seffion, before a fuperior court ; and if 
that court fhould decide amifs, to fummon even /V, with 
thefe paftors and elders, to a ftill higher tribunal ; and 
even that, to a higher, till the obnoxious member be at 
laft excluded. Among Independents however, with all 
their boafted liberty and purity of principle, this is im- 
poflible : for if an unworthy applicant be received as a 
member by a majority of any of their churches, there is 
no fuperior court, on earth at leaft, before whom a con- 
fcientious minority can arraign them, and procure the 
expulfion of that member from their fociety ; however 
unfit, he muft continue in fellowfnip, while no alternative 
is left to them but immediate feparation, or patient fub- 
million amidft obvious corruption. Nor will their fepara- 
tion terminate here ; for if the fame inconfiftenc5 r (hall be 
manifefted by the majority of the other congregation to 
whom they may attach themfelves, from their want of 
any court fuperior to that congregation, they muft again 
feparate and join a third, and fo on, in a continued courfe 
of change and feparation, till, like fome individuals of 
them, they be excluded from the fellowfhip of every 
church upon earth. In fine, if Independents object to 
the principles of Prefhyterians becaufe their members 
muft confide, as to the character of an applicant^ in the 
word of the paftor, on what principle do they themfelves 
trull, in the account which is given of him by any of 
their members when the majority are ignorant of him ? 
May not the paftors and elders obtain in private, all the 
information which is furnifhed to the majority by thefe 
members in public ; and if that majority are difpofed to 
give credit to the latter in an Independent church, why 
mould not the congregation give credit to their paftors 
In a Prefbyterian ? Befides, if the members of a Prefby- 
terian congregation are not allowed to ftate their fenti- 
rnents and vote before an applicant is received, it is 



Letter V. 



bccaufe the fcriptures fcem to veft that power folely m 
the paftors. And it certainly, appears more confident 
with that tendernefs and jujiice which are due to fuch 
applicants, that their qualifications fhould be examined 
in private by the minifters of the church, and that all 
neceflary inquiries mould be made concerning them by 
him and by the elders, than that every particular the 
molt delicate and important, refpedling their character, 
fhould be laid open at large to the fcrutiny and review 
'of a whole congregation ; or that they fhould wait till each 
of the members be personally fatisfied refpe&ing them, 
It would thus feem that the paftors alone, without 
foliciting the judgment of the members, are authorized 
by fcripture to perform this part of ecclefiaflical govern- 
ment, and that this conftitution is alfo better fitted than 
that of Independency to promote the ends of Chriftian 
edification *. 

Next to the power of admitting members to religious 
fellowfhip, and fuperior to it undoubtedly in point of 
magnitude, is that of ordaining office-bearers to the 
exercife of their function. This power likewife ap- 
pears to belong exclufively to the paftors of the 
church, and neither folely nor conjointly to the Chrif- 
tian people. 

* It might alib have been added, that were it judged expedient a 
even upon the Prefbyterian fyftem, when any perfon applies for 
the privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congre- 
gation, and any member who could fubftantiate any objections to 
his admiffion, as in the cafe of election to the office of elders, be 
invited to ftate them to the minifter or fenlon. And it is known 
to be confident with our Prefoyterian conftitution, that the firft 
time a perfon receives a token for admifilon to the fupper, it may- 
be delivered to him in the prefence of the whole congregation, 
fo that being folemnly pointed out to thofe of the members at 
large, who choofe to attend, as a fellow-member, they may recog- 
nize him in that light, and treat him as fuch. 

G 3 



*]6 ' - Letter V. 

Many, indeed, of the modern Independents in England 
maintain, that ordination mould not now be performed 
before a perfon is appointed to the charge of a congrega- 
tion ; that the impofition of hands was ufed only for the 
communication of miraculous gifts ; and that the paftoral 
relation is formed limply by the invitation of the people. 
Some of them, who invite minifiers to a fettlement, ex- 
prefsly difcard the idea of ordination, and fay it is only a 
meeting for prayer and exhortation. And Dr. Prieflley, 
one of the moil zealous of modern Independents, to 
prevent the people from forming any other opinion of it, 
recommended that before this fettlement actually takes 
place, the young minifter mould difpenfe the facraments 
to the church. 

To affirm, however, that ordination Is now unneceflary, 
and that an invitation from the people is all that is 
requifite to form a paftoral relation, and to conftitute 
him whom they elect, a regular paftor, feems to be con- 
trary at once to reafon and to* fcripture. Simple election 
may declare the qualification of a perfon who is approved 
of by the electors, for difcharging the duties of his office, 
but it cannot by itfelf inveft him with that office. When 
Mofes faid to the Ifraelites (Deut. i. 13.), " Take ye wife 
" men and understanding, and known among your tribes, 
u and I will make them rulers over you," he plainly inti- 
mates, that the choice of the people was not fufficient of 
itfelf to conftitute thofe whom they elected rulers, unlefs 
accompanied by an official appointment from himfelf* 
Deacons, alfo, when firft appointed in the Chriftian 
church, after being elefted by the people (Ads vi. 3.), 
were folemnly ordained with prayer, and the impofition 
of hands, by the Apoftles. But if this was neceffary in 
an office fo inferior as that of the deacon, even after the 
election of the people, much more muft it be requifite in 
an office fo fuperior as that of the paftor. We are inform- 
ed alfo, that Paul, together with Barnabas ( A&s xiv. 23*)* 



Letter V* 77 

notwithstanding the choice of the people (if fuch a choice 
was exercifed), ordained elders in every church, in Lyftra, 
and Iconium, and Antioch ; that Titus (Tit. i. 5.) 
was left in Crete, 11 to ordain elders," though chofen by 
the churches, " in every city, as Paul had appointed 
" him that this Apoftle enjoined Timothy (1 Tim. 

v. 22.) " to lay hands fuddenly upon no man," i. e. not 
to ordain him rafhly, which appears unaccountable, if 
popular election alone had been fuflicient to make the 
object of it a paftor. If the choice of the people, more- 
over, conftitutes a perfon the paftor of an Independent 
congregation, it feems neceffarily to follow, that fince 
no act performed by one Independent church is binding 
on another,' if the congregation which chofe him with- 
draw from his miniftry, or oblige him to leave them, his 
miniftry muft ceafe with it, and he muft again be reduced 
to the ftation of a private member. Befides, though the 
observance of the impofition of hands was occafionally em- 
ployed as an emblem of the communication of miraculous 
powers, it cannot be demonftrated that this was its uniform 
ufe, or that, from its being the medium at times of the 
communication of thefe powers, it mould now be difcon- 
tinued. Prayer too, we know (Ads Vill. 14. — 17. 
and ix. 40. &c. ), was occaiionally a mean of imparting' 
thefe powers ; but would any Independent prefume, from 
this circumftance, to argue, as fome do reflecting the 
impofition of hands, that prayer mould now be disconti- 
nued in the church ? This ufage then, when employed 
in ordination^ was intended merely as an emblem of the 
Supplications of thofe who were engaged in performing 
it, that all necefFary, common^ and ordinary endowments 
might be bellowed on the perfon on whom they laid 
their hands. 

This laying on of hands is mentioned by Paul (Heb. 

vi. a.) as one of the jirjl principles of the doctrine ol 

G 3 



78 Letter V. 

Chrift. This, furely, cannot denote a communication of 
the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, for all the other articles 
of Chriftian faith which he fpecifies as primary or funda- 
mental, do not relate to what was peculiar to the primitive 
church, but are of equal importance to every age, It 
appears difficult alfo to conceive how this particular 
miracle mould have been of fuch uncommon moment as 
to merit being confidered in this interefting light, and 
that the knowledge and belief of it, whatever other 
information a perfon might poflefs, was eflential to his, 
being received as a member. By the impofition of hands 
then, as Amefius obferves in his refutation of Bellarmine 
(torn. ii. p. 76.), feems unqueftionably to be defigned 
the Chriftian miniftry, of the communication of which 
this obfervance was a fign. In confirmation of this, as 
well as In refutation of the fentiments of Episcopalians, 
and Papifts, nothing appears more juft than the words of 
Cartwright, in his Treatife againft the Rhemifts. M By 
" impofition of hands the Apoftle meaneth no facrament, 
u much iefs confirmation after baptifm ; but by a trope 
" and borrowed fpeech the miniftry of the church,, 
4i upon the which hands were laid, which appeareth in 
u that whofoever believeth that there ought not to be a 
** miniftry in order to teach, and govern the churchy 
" overthroweth Chriftianity ; whereas if confirmation 
4t of children were a facrament, as it is not, yet a man, 
" holding the reft, and denying the ufe of it, might not- 
M withftanding be faved." 

We perceive likewife, that Timothy is commanded by 
Paul (1 Tim. iv. 14.), " not to neglcft the gift which 
** was in him, and which was given him by or ac- 
4{ cording to prophecy*, with the laying on of the 

* It would feem that certain predictions had been delivered 1 
concerning Timothy, that he would be an eminent and ufeful 
minifter ; in confequence of which it is here declared, that in the 
ufual way he had been fet apart to that office. 



Letter V. 



79 



" hands of the Prefbytery." But if the laying on 
#f the hands of the Prefbytery on Timothy had im- 
parted to him any miraculous gift of the Spirit, how 
could he have neglecled diligently to exercife it, fince 
being entirely under the guidance of his extraordinaiy 
influence, and directed by his fupernatural irrefillible 
energy, he could not have withftood this inftindlive im- 
pulfe to employ thofe endowments which he had receiv- 
ed, whenever and wherever the Spirit fuggefted. And if 
the impofition of hands, when ufed even in ordaining an 
Evangelift to his office, does nc$ appear in the prefent 
inftance to have been the fign of the communication of 
miraculous gifts, may it not be the emblem of the 
communication only of common gifts alfo to ordinary 
minifters ? In fine, this fame Apoftle, in this Epiftle 
(chap. v. ver. 2 2.), enjoins this Evangelift U to lay hands 
" fuddenly upon no man." But if the gifts which were 
to be conferred, in the ordination referred to, were alto- 
gether extraordinary, how could this injunction have 
been delivered ? Could Timothy, when under the 
miraculous guidance of the Spirit, impart precipitately his 
fupernatural gifts to thofe who were unfit or unworthy to 
receive them ? or could he err, as to the proper perfons 
who mould obtain them I The fuppofition is certainly 
inadmifiibJe. From this reafoning we may therefore 
conclude, that fimple eleclion, without ordination, cannot 
conftitute a man a Chriftian minifter, and that the 
impofition of hands, employed in ordination, was not an 
emblem of the communication of miraculous gifts, but 
of ordinary endowments j and of courfe, that it, as well 
as ordination, muft be a {landing ordinance in the 
church of God ? 

But granting that ordination mould ftill be obferved, 
who are the perfons that are authorized to perform it ? 
Is it the people alone 9 or in conjunction with the elders? 
or is it thofe only who are minifters 1 That it is com- 



8o 



Letter V. 



mitted to the latter alone, appears to be the general 
opinion of your churches, for mtnijiers alone, as far as I 
know, ordain your paftors. That fuch alfo is the de- 
termination of fcripture appears evident from a very 
curfory perufal of the facred volume. Not only is it 
obvious that the majority of the people are totally unfit 
to examine the qualifications of a man for the important 
and arduous work of the miniflry, and confequently that 
it would be dangerous to intruft them with fuch power \ 
and not only is it ridiculous to imagine that thofe who 
can neither preach nor difpenfe the facraments, can im- 
part an office while they have none themfelves, but it is 
never affirmed in any part of fcripture that the people 
are to ordain. On the contrary, we are informed, that 
when the firft deacons were chofen by the difciples, they 
were ordained by the Apoftles (Actsvi.) — that when 
Timothy was invefted with the office of a miniller, it 
was by the laying on of the hands of the elderfhip or pref- 
bytery, of which Paul was a member (compare I Tim. 
iv. 14. with 2 Tim. i. 6.) — that " when faithful men, 
M and men who were found able to teach others alfo," 
were invefted with the miniflry in the places where he 
was labouring, it was to be committed to them by him- 
and his fellow-elders (2 Tim. ii. 2.) — that when hands, 
as was before laid, were to be bid upon any, to fet them 
apart to this office, it was he alone, and his fellow-mini- 
fters, who were required to do it (1 Tim. v. 22.) — and 
that when elders were to be ordained in every city in 
Crete, it was only Titus, and his fellow-minifters, 
who were to devote them to their work. Is it 
not wonderful however, that if it be the prerogative of 
the people, either with elders or without them, to ordain 
others to the work of the miniftry, not a fyllable mould 
be mentioned of their being invefted with this truft, or 
exercifing this power, and that it mould be reprefented 
uniformly as committed to the minifters ? 



Letter V. 81 

Robinfon, indeed, with fome ancient Englifn and 
American Independents, and Lockier, one of the ancient, 
with fome of our modern Scotch Independents, have 
not fcrupled to maintain that Matthias, who was chofen 
in place of Judas, was ordained by the hundred and 
twenty difciples, who were partly compofed of the eleven 
apoftles, partly of the feventy difciples, and partly of the 
private members of the church. All who were prefent 
could not however be admitted to ordain Matthias, for 
among thefe 11 were the women,,and Mary the mother of 
M Jefus and it has never yet been alleged by any 
Independent, as far as 1 have heard, that women are to 
be allowed the honour of ordaining a minifter. It is 
evident alfo, that no account is given of his ordination, 
but fimply of his eleblion^ and there is nothing very 
decided to lead us to fuppofe that he was even chofen 
by lot by any but the Apoftles. w Wherefore of thefe 
" men," fays Peter, " that have companied with us 
" (the Apoftles), all the time that the JLord Jefus went 
H in and out among us, rauft one be ordained to be a 
w witnefs with us (undoubtedly the Apoftles) of his 
" refufre&ion." Befides, it merits our particular notice, 
that there was not properly even an ekdion^ either by the 
Apoftles or the people. Two men were named as fit for 
the apoftleftiip ; and the Lord himfelf> in a fupernatural 
manner, as they drew out the lots, pointed out to them 
the individual. The word i , vyK*rt'fyn$tv&n (ver. 26.), 
which is rendered by our tranflators, " he was numbered" 
with the Apoftles, and by the Vulgate, " annumeratus 
" eft cum undecim Apoftolis," does not intimate that 
he was ordained by the people, as Lockier contended ; 
but as the learned Mr. Caudrey, in his Vindicias Clavium, 
p. 29. fays, " That feeing God had chofen and ordained 
" him, they accepted him by orderly fubjeclion to the 
" revealed will of Chrift." Accordingly, we find the 
verb 4^?>'£a>> of which this is a compound; in Luke xiv. 28* 



82 



Letter V. 



fignifying to count or reckon the coft of a thing ; and in 
Rev. xiii. 18. it is employed to denote the counting of 
the number of the bead ; from which it would feem, 
that G-vyy~xTz-J/Yi?icr&}i is properly rendered by our tranfla- 
tors, " and he was numbered, " not ordained, with the 
Apoftles, and fimply means that he was henceforth 
counted or reckoned by the church as one of them. 

It is argued farther,, that the people muft be admitted 
along with the paftors to ordain minifters, becaufe when 
it is faid of Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 23.) that 
" they ordained elders in every city," the word 
XUZOTcvYirctms) in their opinion, properly fignifies that they 
chofe them by fuffrage or vote ; and as there were only 
two of them, they think that they could not themfelves 
choofe them, but fimply prefided at an election of theni 
by the people. But on this it may be remarked, that 
if their tranflation were adopted, it would only fhew that 
the people defied, but not that they ordained the elders, 
two things which are extremely different ; for, in any 
of your congregations, for example, though the members 
elect, it is the minifters of other churches alone who or- 
dain a paftor. Befides, though the word, as applied to 
the cuftoms of ancient Greece, literally fignifies election 
by fuffrage, expreJTed by lifting up the hand of the 
elector, it never denotes to prefide at an election. We 
know, too, that it means often to conftitute or appoint 
to an office without fuffrage or vote. Thus Jofephus, in 
his Antiquities, book vi. chap. iv. fpeaks of " a king 
" appointed by God, Batrttevs 'vno tov €>zov ^n^orovr t hig 
and thus, too, Acts x. 40, 41. " Him God raifed up 
" the third day, and fhewed him openly, not to all the 
" people, but to witneffes chofen before of God, 
" 7T£oxt%st£OT<»)v}f<civois." Since, then, it muft be plain to 
every perfon who looks for a moment at the grammatical 
arrangement of Acts xiv. 23. that it was Paul and Bar- 
nabas who did what is expreffed by xaqoTovwwrtSi is 



Letter V. 83 

ver. 23. as much as it was they who, according to 
ver. 22. confirmed the fouls of the difciples, and ex- 
horted them to continue in the faith ; fince this word 
never fignifies, as far as has been yet afcertained, to 
prefide at an election, where the choice is made by thofe 
who vote by lifting up the hand ; fince it means to con- 
jlitute> or ordain, as well as to elect ; fince it is never 
taken in the latter fenfe, but where it is ufed to 
-exprefs the act of at lead more than two ; and fince 
there were only two, in the prefent inftance, who did 
what is intended by it ; it appears naturally to follow 
that it cannot denote in the place in queftion, that the 
Apoftles themfeWes elected elders by vote in every city, 
and much lefs that they prefided at the election of them 
by others, but fimply, as our venerable tranflators have 
rendered it, that they themfelves " ordained them." 
And with this idea the verfion of the Vulgate or Old Latin, 
which formerly was fo generally received by the churches, 
accurately coincides : " Et cum conftituifTent illis per 
" fingulas ecclefias prefbyteros i. e. " And when 
" they had conjlituted or ordained elders to them in every 
" church." But what argument can be deduced from 
this, for admitting the people to join with their paftors 
in ordaining minifters*? 

* It is objected farther hy them, that the Prefbytery who 
ordained Timothy to the office of an Evangeiift could not be 
ordinary paftors, becaufe they were greatly inferior to him," but 
Apoftles or Prophets; and of courfe, that no argument can be 
drawn from his ordination by fuch a Prefbytery, for the exclufive 
right of our prefent minifters to ordain. To this it is replied, 
that if, according to the fpirit of this objection, only fuperior 
minifters could ordain Timothy, how can it be argued that the 
people, who are greatly inferior to a minifter, can ordain a 
rahujler ? — that even though it were granted that the Prefbytery 
which ordained Timothy was compofed of extraordinary minifters, 
they did not act as fuch, but merely in the ordinary capacity of 
elders, as the word prefbytery or elderfhip fuggefts — and that for 



8^ Letter V. 

Thus, then, it would feem that we have no authority 
from fcrlpture for allowing the people to ordain pallors, 
and that it 13 the minifters of the gofpel, and they alone, 
who are warranted by the word of God, as well as by 
tde explicit declaration of your churches, to perform this 
important aft of ecclefiaftical government. 

Farther, while it is undeniable that the power of 
exercifing difcipline is committed to thofe who are office- 
bearers of the church, it does not appear that it is veiled 
alfo indifcriminately in all who are members. 

That the power of difcipline is conferred upon the 
office-bearers mull be evident to us, on reading with 
impartiality the following pafTages. " Then faid Jefus 
" to them again (the eleven Apoftles), Peace be unto 
6i you : as my father hath fent me, even fo fend I you. 
" Whofe foever fins ye remit, they are remitted ; and 
*f whofe foever firis ye retain, they are retained John 
xx. 21. 23. " Againft an elder receive not an accufa- 
" tion, but before two or three witneiTcs 1 Tim. v. 19. 
And that it is minifters alone who are to receive this 
accufation, and examine thefe witnefTes, feems manifeft 
from this, that it is they alone who are to do it that are 
commanded in the next verfe, %6 to rebuke before all 
" fuch as finned, that others might fear," by whom we 
are certainly to underftand the minifters. And again, 
fays Paul to Titus (chap. iii. 10.), "A man that is an 
" heretic, after a firft and fecond admonition, reject." 
While fuch however are the repeated declarations of 

any thing that we know, there may have been among them 
ordinary minifters, who might have been admitted with as much 
propriety, as they were already minifters, to ordain an Evangelift, 
as teachers, who certainly were but ordinary minifters, were 
allowed with prophets (Acts xiii. 1, a, 3.), to fet apart, by prayer 
and impofition of hands, Paul and Barnabas, one of whom was an 
Apoftle and the other an Evangelift, to a particular work in the 
city of Antioch. 



Letter V. 



8 5 



fcripture refpecling the commiflion of this power to the 
minifters, not a fingle inftance has yet been produced 
where it is explicitly affirmed to be intruded with the 
people. Pafiages have indeed been adduced by Indepen- 
dents, from the eighteenth of Matthew, and the Firft 
and Second Epiftles to the Corinthians, to demonftrate 
that this power has been vefted alfo in the people. But 
we truft it will appear from the following Letters, that 
it cannot be proved from either of thefe paffages, that 
the people perfonally are to exercife this power \ and that, 
agreeably to our common modes of fpeaking, all that is 
there affirmed to be done by them, may be done by them 
folely by means of their reprefentatives. On the contrary, 
however, while not a fingle inftance has yet been brought 
forward, where the members of the church, as dljlinguljhed 
from the minifters, or as joined to them, are intrufted with 
this power, the office-bearers, who are elfewhere charac- 
terized as governors, without the addition of any other 
perfon, are commanded to exercife it. Since the elders 
of the church, then, are the only perfons who are exprefsly 
declared to be vefted with this power ; fince the mem- 
bers, as dljlingutjhed from the elders, are never faid to 
have received this authority, nor to be joined with them 
as ecclefiaftical overfeers in fuch a manner as that their 
vote muft be afked before it can be exerted ; and fince 
all that is faid to be done by the members could be done 
by them fimply through their elders or reprefentatives, 
without exprefling any judgment or vote of their own; 
it appears to be a fair and natural conclufion, that the 
elders of the church, without the members, are to decide 
in matters of difcipline as well as government. 

But if the elders alone, as was now evinced, are to 
admit members, ordain office-bearers, and exercife dif- 
cipline, it neceffarily follows that it is they alone, in 
every thing, who are to govern the church. The for- 
mer confeffedly are more important matters, and if in- 

H 



86 



Letter V. 



trufted exclufively with the management of thefe, why 
mould they not exclufively be invefted alfo with the 
adminiftration of what is inferior ? Befides, as was re- 
marked, is it not afferted by Mr. Ewieg, that the mem- 
bers are not to judge in inferior points, from the baneful 
confequences which, in his opinion, would refult from it 
to the caufe of truth ; and of courfe, fince they are not 
to determine in more intereftirig matters, is it not evi- 
dent that they are not to judge at all ? 

Upon a review then of this as well as the preceding 
arguments, I feel difpofed to conclude that the elders 
alone, and not the people, are to govern the church, and 
that the former are to adminifter it without even folicit- 
Jng the confent of the latter ; and this conclufion I am 
authorized to confider as unavoidable, unlefs it can be 
proved that the arguments which have been urged for 
this Prefbyterian principle are equally explicable upon the 
Independent plan, and are contradicted by fuperior unex- 
ceptionable proof. In the following Letters it is propofed 
to confider thefe proofs in order, which have been urged 
for Independency, with the degree of force which they 
feem to poffefs, to counterbalance and overpower the dif- 
ferent arguments which appear to be prefented by the 
facred writings in favour of Prefbytery. 



LETTER VI. 

SIR, 

That that the people are entitled, in matters which 
relate to ecclefialtical polity, to judge and vote as well 
as their elders, you think to be evident from Matth. xviii. 
15, 16, 17. " Where our Lord," you fay (p. 33.)* 
61 gives his people particular directions reflecting their 
conduct in the cafe of offences. Moreover, if thy 



Letter VI. 87 

" brother fh all trefpafs againjl thee, go and tell him his fault 
" between thee and him alone : if he fhall hear thee 9 thou 
" hajl gained thy trot her. But if he will not hear thee 9 then 
" take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two 
** or three witneffes every word may be e/lablj/hed. And if 
" he Jhall neglecl to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if 
" he neglecl to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an 
" Heathen man and a Publican. Here, by the church to 
" whom the offence of a brother is to be told, you 
" think is intended a particular congregation, and every 
" member in it ; and in proof of it remark, that in the 
" fcriptures the word church has two fignincations. It 
" either denotes the whole affembly of thofe redeemed 
" by the blood of Chrivt, or an individual fociety. In 
" this laft fenfe it is fometimes applied to a meeting of 
" any description. It is thus ufed, A&s xix. 32. where 
" the word generally tranflated church, is rendered af- 
u fembly. When in this lad and more reftricled fenfe 
" it is applied to Chriftians, it is plainly defcriptive of 
" thofe who meet together for Chriftian fellowfhip in an 
" individual fociety. Agreeably to this it is deferving 
" of remark, that -when the Chriftians fcattered over a 
" province are mentioned, who of courfe met in dif- 
" ferent Societies, the word church is always found in 
" the plural. Thus we have the churches of Judea, the 
tc churches of Macedonia, the churches of Galatia, &c. 
" Examples of the flrft ufe of the term occur, Col. i. 18. 
" Eph. i. 22. Heb. xii. 23. ; and of the fecond, A&s 
" ix. 31. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. In no cafe does it feem 
" employed to denote the rulers of a church as diftin- 
" guifhed from the general body, though in Ac"ls xv. 22. 
" it is ufed to defcribe the latter of thefe as diftinguifhed 
16 from the former. As in the paffage then above quot- 
" ed, it would be impoffible to comply with the admo- 
" nition, if by the word church, the church univerfal is 
" meant, it is plain the expreffion cannot be underftood 
H 2 



88 



Letter VI. 



m in any other fenfe than as denoting the particular 
" fociety of Chriftians with which we are connected. 
" To thefe the offence is to be told. If the offending 
" brother will not hear them, he is to be viewed as a 
** Heathen man and a Publican, in the fame light as 
" thofe who are flill in a ftate of Heathenifm, and not 
" members of the church at all : in other words, he is to 
c< be excluded from the fociety. In this paffage nothing 
4t feems plainer, than that the decifion of the church is 
€t to be confidered as final. There is not the fmallefl 
" hint about the poflibility of an appeal ; nay, we may 
" fafely affert, that with fuch a fyftem as a court of re- 
" view, by which the decifion of an individual fociety 
" may be reverfed, the language is altogether incom- 
" patible." 

In anfwer to this, however, I would fhortly obferve, 
that it feems by no means juft to affirm, that the church 
in fcripture fignifies either the church univerfal, or a 
particular congregation. It is applied in fcripture, for 
inftance, to the church at Jerufalem, many years after 
the gofpel had been preached there, and preached even 
by eleven apoftles, and many prophets and evangelifts, 
as well as parlors and teachers, with wonderful fuccefs. 
Now, when beftowed upon this church, Prefbyterians 
have afferted, and the church, which you have left, 
endeavours to prove in her public ftandards, that it 
undoubtedly includes a number of congregations united in 
fuch a manner, in point of government, as that while 
they flill remained feparate congregations, and furnifhed 
fufficient employment even for all thefe minifters, they 
conftituted only one church* But to attempt to difprove 
this, and overthrow the argument adduced from it by 
her, for the fubordination of a number of congregations 
to the review of a Prefbytery, as well as to their own 
particular rulers, by a firaple affertion that the word is not 
fa to he tinder/lood, appears to me not ingenuous. - It is 



Letter VL 89 

plainly what has been denominated by logicians a 
begging the quefl'wn, or taking for granted the very thing 
to be proved, which fpecies of proof, however eafy and 
expeditious, 1*3 unqueitionably unfair, and was fcarcely 
to be expected from you, who had engaged to put your 
readers in pofleffion of the principal arguments on both 
fides of the queftion. Not only however does the word^. 
church, in thefe and other paflages, fignify a number of 
congregations united in fuch a manner as to have one 
common government, while at the fame time they had 
each their particular rulers, but it appears even fometimes 
to mean the office-bearers of the church as diftinguifhed 
from the members. In this fenfe it feems to be taken 
in A els viii. 1, where we are told, that " there was a great 
" perfecution on the fame day (gv tKuvn rjj \^ct) againft 
" the church which was at Jerufalem ; and that they were 
" all fcattered abroad about the regions of Judea and Sama- 
M ria, except the Apostles" Now, that by the church here 
fpecified, who were all fcattered abroad except the 
Apoitles, is intended only the minifters, and not the 
members, appears to be mod probable, not only from 
this, that the minifters would be more readily marked out 
as the firft objects of their vengeance by the enemies of 
Chriitianity *, and that all thofe who are mentioned of 

* That the Apoftles at this time did not flee from Jerufalem 
is indeed remarkable. * £ Perhaps," as a judicious author obferves, 
M the Jewiih rulers, finding that neither threats, nor any punifh- 
" ment which they couid inflict, could deter them from their 
" duty, were unwilling to exhibit a new proof of the weaknefs of 
M their power. Perhaps, as they continued in a more public 
" part of the city, where multitudes attended, their enemies 
" were afraid of exciting a tumult by attacking them. Or, per- 
" haps, Saul fpared them from refpett to the opinion of his 
" mafter Gamaliel." Or, as might have been added, as they in 
particular were appointed to be witnefTes of the refurrection of 
Chrift, they might fee it to be their duty to remain in that city * 

h 3 



po Letter VI. 

them who were fcattered abroad, as Philip, (ver. 5.}, 
and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen (chap. xiii. 1.), 
were of this defcription ; but that even after it is affirmed 
here, that all the church were fcattered abroad except the 
apostles, it is aiTerted in the 3d verfe, that a church 
still remained different from the former, and a church 
which Saul perfecuted, and the men and women of which, 
entering into their houfes he committed to prifon. But 
if the whole of the church referred to in ver. 1. as we 
are informed, were fcattered abroad except the Apostles ; 
and if at the fame time it be inftantly fubjoined, that 
there was still a church after this left at Jerufalem, of 
which thofe alone are mentioned who were not minifters^ 
is it not obvious, that, in the former verfe, the church 
who are fpoken of, and are declared to have been all 
fcattered abroad except the Apoftles, can have been the 
ministers only of that Chriftian church I Here then is 
one inftance in which it would feem, that by the church 
we are certainly to underftand its office-bearers as diftin- 
guifhed from its members ; and this application of the 
term appears no lefs defenfible upon the principle of fub- 
ftituting a part for the whole, than the application of it 
to the members exclufively of the minifters in Act.s xv. 22. 
agreeably to the view which you give of that paffage. 

Since then this term is applied to the office-bearers, in 
diftincr.ion from the members, as well as to the members, 
when diftinguifhed from the office-bearers, or, as in 
other cafes, when conjoined with them, in which of the 
fenfes is it to be underftood in this paflage, when a 
Chriftian is commanded to tell the offence of his brother to 
the church ? That it has been admitted to refer to the 
firft of thefe by fome of the moft refpeftable even of the 

where he had rifen from the dead, to bear teftimony there for a 
while to this fact, even though it mould expofe them to furTericg% 
See Robertfon's Lay-preaching Indefenfible, p. 38. 



Letter VI. 91 

Independents them/elves, is a fa& which is incontrovertible. 
The famous Mr. Parker of New England, in his Tract, 
de Polit. lib. iii. cap. xv. allows explicitly that the fir It 
time it is mentioned in Matth. xviii. 17. it means the 
elders, and they alone, though in the following claufe, 
however inconfiftently, he fuppofes it denotes the people 
as concurring with them. His words are, " Ecclefiam 
" primo loco confideratam in his verbis, practfe partem 
" arhtocratlcam, id eft prefbyterium, fignificare exifti- 
" marrrus;" i. e. *f We think that the church, in the 
" firft of thefe claufes, fignifies exprefsly the aristocratic 
" part, or the elders" And that it has been confidered, 
or at lead acted upon, by others of them in the fame 
light is no lefs certain. The celebrated Hooker of 
America, in his Survey, part iii. chap. iii. p. 36. affirms, 
that in a cafe of offence, the matter is firft to be told to 
the elders ; that it is their prerogative to examine whether 
the point is of fufficient magnitude as to be made a 
fubjecl: of judicial authoritative inve {ligation, to call 
witnefTes, to review the evidence, and confider the 
fentence which is proportioned to the offence, before the 
matter is to be laid before the members. And iuch, alfo, 
at leaft is the practice of many of the prefent bodies of 
Independents, whofe elders are the perions to whom, if 
the offending brother refufes to yield, when admonifhed 
of his fault before two or three witneffes, the offence is 
told, and who make a particular inquiry into the bufi- 
nefs before it is announced to the congregation. Such, 
too, if I am not mifinformed, is the practice of your own 
fociety, and of its fifter-churches. But without farther 
detailing the fentiments of Independents, the praclice at 
leaft of many of whom, with regard to the perfons to whom 
the offence is to be told, after the private admonition, is 
the fame with that of Prefbyterians, I proceed to obferve 
that it is equally natural, and much more confiftent, to 
underftand by the church, in the paffage before us, the 



92 Letter VI. 

elders of the congregation, than the congregation at large 
connected with the office-bearers. 

In the i ft place, It feems plain that in what our Lord 
here fays, as to the mode of procedure in the Chriftian 
church, he alludes to the Jewifh ecclefiaftical courts, the 
fynagogue and the fanhedrin, which at, that time were 
familiar to the minds of the Jews, and from which molt 
probably they would form their ideas of the import of 
his words. This is not only affirmed by Calvin, Beza, 
Parasus, and other learned expofitors, but is granted even 
by the venerable Goodwin, the moft diftinguifhed of the 
feven Independent brethren who fat in the Affembly of 
Divines at Weftminfter. " The allufion of Jefus," fays he 
(p. 57. 58. of his Treatife on Government), 11 is to the 
" fynagogues in every town, which were the ecclefiaftical 
" ftate. The books of Mofes were read in every city, 
" in the fynagogues: Acts xv. 21. To tell the church 
H therefore," he remarks, " was to tell that particular 
" fynagogue of which they were members and this he 
endeavours to prove by a variety of arguments. And 
that this was the meaning of Chrift appears alfo from the 
words which are fubjoined, " Let him be to thee as a 
* Heathen man and a Publican;" which I obferve, in 
oppofition to Mr. Glafs *, you rightly confider* (p. 34.) 

* See his Letters to Ayton, in the firft volume of his Works, 
p. 287. where he denies that this palTage refers to the order of 
the Jewifh church, or to excommunication from their focieties; 
and affirms-, after Prynne and fome ancient Independents, that it 
contains merely a command to Chriftians to abftain from civil 
intercourfe and from eating with an obftinate offending brother, 
as the Jews abilained from aflbciating or eating with a Heathen 
©r a Publican, referring us to 1 Cor. v. 11. compared with Acts 
x. 28. and xi. 3. It does not however appear that civil inter- 
courfe was prohibited to the Jews with the Heathens, or was 
avoided by them, though we know that they did not cultivate 
religious fellowfhip. On the contrary, we find that Nehemiah 
permitted the Tyrians to fell their commodities to the children 



Letter VI. 



93' 



as^denoting exclujton from the churchy and which, according 
to Goodwin (p. 59.), are fimilar in import to " cafting 
" oat of the fynagogue." Benjamin of Tudela more- 
over, when fpeaking of the Mafiilian fynagogue, thrice 

of Ifrael on every day but the Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 16. — 2l) — that 
the fervants of Hiram and of Solomon were employed together in 
building the temple — that Jehomaphat aflbciated with the king 
of Edom (a Kings iii.) — and that, in the reign of Solomon, there 
were no lefs than a hundred and fifty thoufand and fix hundred 
Heathens in the land of Judea, with whom the Ifraelites could 
not fail to mingle. The intercourfe, then, of which Peter ipeaks 
(AOs x. 28.), as quoted by Giafs, mufr. have been a religious inter- 
courfe ; and this feems to be evident not only from its being dated 
as the end for which Cornelius requefted an interview (ver. 2%.) 9 
" that he might hear words," or religious inflruttions," fiom him," 
but alfo from the tranflation of his words in the Syriac verfion 
(ver. a8.)> " Ye know that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to 
" join himfelf unto a man that is a ftrangcr, w 7 ho is not a fon of his 
" generation," i. e. in religious fellowfhip. And as it appears plain 
that it was only religious intercourfe which was avoided with the 
Heathens by the Jews, fo it has been aiTerted, and afierted with con- 
fiderable plaufibiiity, that they were not prohibited from eating 
every kind of food with the Gentiles, but only fuch as was un- 
clean. Toftatus, upon 2- Chron. vi. and Grotius, in his book de 
Jure Bell, et Pac. lib. ii. cap. xv. feet. ix. exprefsly affirm, that 
it was only fuch meats as were prohibited by the law that the 
Jews were ordered not to eat with the Heathens, but that all 
other things they might eat with them. And Drufius, in his 
Quseft. et P>efp. lib. ii. Quasft. Ixvii. mentions an old law, from 
one of the writings of the Rabbis, Elias in Thefbite, which forbad 
the Jews to drink wine with Heathens, and was made at the time 
when the Gentiles ufed prelibations of wine in their facred rites : 
" Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libabant in facris." 
But fuch a prohibition, and efpecially for fuch a reafon^ proves 
that the Jews might eat and drink with the Gentiles all other 
things which were not unclean, or employed for idolatrous pur- 
pofes. It is obvious then, that to reprefent our Saviour, in 
Matth. xviii. as commanding an obftinate offending brother to be 
treated by his church as a Heathen was treated in thefe refpetts 
by the Jews, who neither refufed him civil intercourfe, nor 



54 



Letter VI. 



applies to it in one paragraph, and even to its rulers alone, 
the term kahal, which is mod frequently rendered by tile 
Seventy g««A-^5-<«, the very word employed in this paflage, 
and tranflated church (fee Vitringa de Synagoga, p. 563. 

hefitated to eat with him whatever meats were not prohibited by 
the law or ufed by him to idolatrous pmpofes, is. to render his 
words trifling and infignificant. Befides, even admitting that they 
refufcd to have any civil intercourfe with a Heathen, or to eat 
with him at all, this was only one part, and the Icaft part of trie 
privileges which they denied him. He could not be a member 
of their fynagogues, nor was he allowed to worlhip in the inner 
court of their temple. Ezek. xliv. 7. 9. Acts xxi. 28. He was 
viewed, in fhort, as " an alien from the commonwealth of Ifrael, 
" and a ftranger from the covenants of promife, having no hope, 
" and without God in the world." Compare Eph. ii. 11, ra. 
To confider the phrafe therefore, " Let him be to thee as a Hea- 
" then man," as including, on the other hand, any thing le£s 
than the privation of thefe privileges, is to attach to it a meaning 
totally below its import and fignificancy. Whatever other pri- 
vileges then might he refufed to the Heathens, as they were evi- 
dently excluded by the Jews from their church ; and as appears 
from the New Teftament, and the writings of the Rabbis, that 
heretical, or apoftate, or difobedient brethren (fee John ix. 
xii. 42. xvi. 2. Abarbanel de Capite Fidei, Selden de Jure Natur. 
et Gent. lib. vi. cap. x.), were cart by them, like Heathens, out of 
their fynagogues — and were obliged, like them, to pay ufury for 
the money which they received in loan, " Quia fratrum nomeo 
u exuerant and, as Grotius obferves on Luke vi. 22. if they 
came into the temple, were admitted, like them, only into the 
outer court, and that too with a particular mark of difgrace ; 
fince fuch was the way in which the Gentiles, or Heathens, were 
ufually treated by the Jews, and jfince fuch was the way in which 
thofe of the Jews -who apoftatized were treated by their church, is 
it not obvious that when the very fame language is applied in 
Matthew, to exprefs the conduct of the church of Chrift towards 
offending brethren, an evident analogy is pointed out in the latter 
church to the former, and in the punifliments of the one to thofe 
of the other ? 

As the allufion, in fine, from the terms Heathen and Publican, 
is plainly Jewilh, it will not be a valid objection againfl: confider- 



Letter VI. 



95 



564.)- It is obferved alfo by Goodwin, upon good au- 
thority, that the word trvvayayvi, tranflated M fynagogue," 
and the word tfocXwtcc, here rendered " church, " are, in 
a number of inilances, " all one in the Septuagint." 
But we know that the firil of thefe terms, which is often 
fynonimous with the word here tranflated church, is 
ufed by James, in allufion to the Jewifh fynagogue* to 
denote either a Chriflian congregation, or the place 
where they met, transferring to the latter the name of 
the former ; for the words of that Apoftle (fee his Epiftle, 
chap. ii. ver. 2.), which are rendered in our verfion, 
66 If there come into your affembly, a man with a gold 
<c ring, &c." literally mean, " If there come into your 
" fy na g°g u t" And what is tranflated in our Bibles 
(Heb. x. 25. )j " forfake not the affemblingof yourfelves 
u together," literally imports, " your meeting in a 
" fynagogue," i7ri<rvvxywyviv. If the very name however, 
hahal or ecclefia, here rendered church, be given fre- 
quently by the Rabbis themf elves to the Jewifh fynagogue ; 
if another term, often equivalent to this, and repeatedly 
ufed in the New Teflament to denote a fynagogue, be 
elfewhere applied to the Chriflian church ; if the conduft 
which is here enjoined upon this church towards an 
obftinate offender, be expreffed in language precifely the 
fame with that which was defcriptive of the conduct of 
the Jews to an impenitent offender whom they cafl out 
of their fynagogue; and if our Lord, when borrowing 
thefe terms from the fynagogue, to denote his church, 

i4ig it as exclufion from their church which is intended, to tell 11s 
that it is only the brother who is offended that is to treat the 
offender as a Heathen and a Publican. If the brother who is 
offended is to abftain from religious communion with the offender 
on account of his fin, it is certainly no lefs flrongly declared in 
this pafTage, that the church, who are no lefs offended than the 
brother, beCaufe the offender will not hear them, mufl treat him 
as a Heathen, and reject him from their fellowfbip. 



96 Letter VI. 

and its conduct towards offenders, gives no intimation 
that they were to be underftood as to it, in a different 
acceptation than when applied to the former ; it is plain 
that to afcertain the import of this paffage, we mud 
have recourfe to the practices of the Jewifh fynagogue, 
and inquire who were the perfons in that church, or iKKhvcioc, 
to whom offences were told, and who judged refpecting 
them. 

In examining however who were the perfons of the 
Jewifh fynagogue, or iKJcXnaia, that adminiftered it* 
affairs, and determined in this as well as other matters, 
we perceive that they were the rulers. This is evident 
not only from the teftimony of the New Teftament, but 
from the writings of their Doctors. Thus, Actsxiii. 15. 
" And after the reading of the law and the prophets, 
" the rulers of the fynagogue (ecg%tcvvctyMyci) fent unto 
" Paul and his companions," EsV. *: among which rulers 

* Without entering particularly into the confideration of the 
propriety of the Independent practice, of allowing any of their 
members who chufes to exhort the church when met together, I 
think it very obvious that one of the common arguments for it, 
which they frequently urge from the paflage here quoted, is totally 
untenable. We are indeed here informed, that " after the reading 
" of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the fynagogue fent unto 
" them (Paul and his companions), faying, Ye men and brethren, 
" if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, fay on." It 
is to be recollected however, that the church where they were, 
was not a Chriftian congregation, but a Jeivijh fynagogue ; and 
Vitringa, I think, has proved inconteftably in his Treatife on the 
Synagogue, lib. iii. pars i. cap. vii. that none but thofe who were 
confidered as Rabbis or Doctors, and who were folemnly fet apart 
by the impofition of hands, were permitted, after the reading of 
the law and the prophets, to exhort the people. For thefe, he 
tells us, there were particular feats in all their fynagogues, and 
eftablifhes his affertion by a variety of references. And in fome 
of thefe feats he affirms, as we are told by Luke (ver. 14.) , that 
Paul and Barnabas having fat down, were confidered by the rulers 
as Doctors, and were invited, according to the ufual cuftom, to 



Letter VI. 



97 



it would appear that there was one who was prefident ; 
for we are informed (Luke xiii. 14-), that " the ruler 
<c of the fynagogue (a£%i<rvvxy&'yos) anfwered with in- 
" dignation, becaufe Jefus had healed on the Sabbath- 
exhort, declaring at the fame time, that it was contrary to the 
ufual practice in the fynagogue to allow the common members to 
perform this duty. His words are (p. 709.)* " -At non de Chrifto 
<* modo, fed et illius apoftolis et difcipulis legimus, quod et illi 
" doccntium cathedras occupaverint, et inde pro Dotloribus ab lis 
" agniti fuerint, quorum id fcire intererat. Narratur id in Actis 
" Apoftolorum, cap. xiii. 14. Ipfi vero digrejji Perga venerunt 
" Antiochiam PifidU, et ingrefii fynagogam die Sahbaii i kva affzXGovns 
%l zica.$i<?(K.v. Sederunt Paulus et Barnabas fynagogam ingreffi. In- 
" telligendum, occupaiTe eos fedes docentram, quod federe xcct* 
** tfAQaciv eft in fcripturis fanclis (compare Matth. xxiii. 1, % m 
** xxvi, 55. &c). Sciverunt enim inde arcbifynagogi, eo forte 
" animo iilos fynagogam ingreffos efie, ut docerent. Ita enim per- 
" git Lucas : Poft lefiione?n autem Ugh et prophetarum mijerunt 
" prtfecri fynagoga ad eos, dicentes : Viri y fratres t fi quis eft in volts 
" fir mo exhoriationis, dicite. Qusenam ratio fuiffet, ut archifyna- 
* c gogi homines hos, fibi, ut plane videtur, ignotcs ad dicendum 

invita (Tent, fi communia vulgi occupajfent fubfelKa^ nulloque ex 
" indicio de eorum aptitudine et docendi animo facti fuilTent 
" certiores ? Et quednam id effe potuit fignum, quam fijfio, cum 
" nihil aliud de ipfis referatur, quam quod fynagogam ingrefu 

confederint ? Cum vero folus fedcndi actus non poffit elTe in- 
" dicium vel DoRoris, vel intejitionis dccendi, omnino videtur, 
" aliam hie figniflcari ferlionem, quae Dcciorum erat." And the 
fame alfo are the fentiments of Altingius, who exprefsly affirms 
in his Schilo, lib. iii. cap. vi. " Atque in hac ufurpatione (fedendi) 
<l pro DGCrorious agniti funt ab archiiynagogi s, qui facia legis et 
" prophetarum leclicne admiferunt, ut fi meditati acceffilfent 
" verba in coetu facerent. Neque enim rite hinc concluferis, 
u cuivis peregrino hoc indultum fuifle ut publice diceret. Sed 
" cum peregrini ifti fe magiftros profiterenturyh/^Wi privilegio, 
" prsefecti fynagogae, ipfis id honoris detulerunt." Whatever then 
be the arguments which can be adduced by Independents for 
allowing the members to addrefs the church, it would appear that 
they are not entitled to advance any from the prefent paflage, 
And though it is granted that it is the duty of believers in gene- 

1 



9S Letter VI. 

« day." See aifo Mark v. 35, 36. 38. A&s xvii. 8. 17. 
Accordingly it is faid by Jofephus, in his account of his 
life, p. 1020. and 1022- that the fynagogue at Tiberias 
was governed by a prefideut, mo^m, and a fenate of 
elders, fiovMv : ^vni^av 5s T/jv ^sr#/3aAj}v Xyarovg, toy (tw S^acov 

<( Jefus, the prefideut, feeing the Hate of things altered, 
66 ordered the people to depart, but thought it proper 
" that the fenate" or, as it is in the Latin tranfiation, 
fenatum folum, " mould remain. " And Maimonides, a 
celebrated Jewifh Rabbi, in Hilcoth Taanioth, cap. iv. 
fed. i, in his Tracl. de Jejuniis, reprefents a fynagogue 
at Jerufalem as governed by one, whom he denominates 
princeps or chief, and pater or father, and a fynedrium 
ant collegium fapientium, i. e. a fenate or college of wife 
men. The number of the rulers in their fynagogues in 
large cities, according to Benjamin of Tudela, as quoted 
by Vitringa, was fometimes very great ; and even in their 
leafl fynagogues, " they were never lefs," fays Goodwin 
(p. 58.), " than three, that a major vote might caft it 
u among them." Now if a Jew, when offended, though 
he made known his complaint in the hearing of the other 
members of the fynagogue, fubmitted it for judgment 
to the Scribes and Doctors, who were rulers of the fyna- 
gogue, and them alone ; and if our Saviour, when 
ipeaking of the manner in which an offended brother 
was to proceed in his church, ufes precifely the very fame 
language, and bids him tell it exprefsly to a fimilar church ; 
is it not plain, that, fo far at leafl as the prefent pajfage 

ral, no lefs under the new than under the old difpenfation, to 
converfe with one another, in the houfe and by the way, upon 
the truths of religion, and provoke and exhort one another to 
every good work, it may perhaps be* diScult to prove from the 
fcriptures, that when a congregation is met in a church-capaciiy, 
my member who -chufes is warranted to rife, and publicly to ex - 
hort, or admoniGi, or inftrucl them. 



Letter VI. 



99 



Is concerned, inftead of proving the right of every 
member of a Chriftian congregation to heat and judge in 
a cafe of offence, it demonftrates that this power, as in 
the Jewijh Synagogue > is committed to the rulers, and the 
rulers exelu/lvely. 

Again, as there was a right of appeal from the deter- 
mination of the rulers of a particular fynagogue to their 
great fanhedrin, or council of feventy, is it not obvious 
that this pqffage, inftead of favouring the Independent 
plan, of conftituting every congregation a complete court 
in itfelf, without fubjecting it to the review of a Pre f ■ 
bytery, flrongly eftablifhes the very contrary ; and ex- 
hibits clearly thefe firft principles of Prefbyterians, that, as 
in the Jewifh courts, it is the elders alone who are entitled 
to govern a particular congregation, and that thefe again 
are fubjeft to the authoritative review of other courts, 
who can either affirm or reverfe their decifions * ? 

Is it faid, in fine, that we are informed in other places, 
that the form of government in the New-Ten 1 ament 
church is completely different from that which exifted in 
the fynagogue and fanhedrin, and confequently that it 
cannot be inferred from this pafTage, that the admi- 
niflration mould be committed in a particular con- 
gregation only to thofe who arc elders, and that thefe 
again fhould be fubjecr. to the authoritative review of 
a higher court ? It is replied, that when this is proved 
from theSe other pafTage s, the inference will be dropt— 

* Accordingly Prynne-, a very noted ancient divine, who fa- 
voured fome of the fentiments of Independents, in his Anfvver to 
Gillefpie, affirms, in oppofition to you, that by the church, or 
afTembly, mentioned by Matthew, is intended, not the members 
of a particular congregation, but the fanhedrin; and quotes Jofe- 
phus, as if he had fpoken of this text, and applied the very name 
here employed by the Evangelift to that celebrated court. For an 
account of this court, and of the fynagogue, with a folution of 
fome objections urged again ft this argument, fee Appendix. 
I 2 

I 



100 



Letter VI. 



that It is readily granted, that in fo far as the form of 
government is demon ftrated from thefe pafiages to be 
altered, it ought to be altered — but that unlefs it can 
be evinced from them, that it is changed in the points 
about which we are no<w inquiring, and is taken from 
the elders in a particular congregation, and in an equal 
degree given to all the members of a congregation, with- 
out any pofiibility of appeal to a higher court, the 
inference is good. So far, however, as the paffage before 
us is viewed in it/elf, and explained by the allufion to which 
it refers, though brought forward by you and the reft of 
your brethren, as the jirjl argument for Independency, it 
feems naturally to eftablifh the very contrary, and to prove 
that in a Chriftian congregation, as in a Jewifh fynagogue, 
it is the elders alone, and not the members, and the elders 
as fubordinate to the authoritative review of a fuperior 
court, who are appointed to govern the church of God *. 

* It is urged indeed by Goodwin (p. 60.), that no argument 
can be adduced in favour of Prefbytery, from the application of 
the terms defcriptive of the fynagogue and of the mode of pro- 
cedure in it, in cafes of offence to the Chriftian church, " becaufe 
" the manner is oftentimes to fpeak in the language of the Old 
" Teftament when the fame thing," or an exact correfpondency 
to it " is not meant ; as when Chrift fpeaks of the perfon offend- 
w ing, Matth. v. 32. he exprefTeth the degrees of puniihment to 
" feveral fins, under the names of three courts amongft the Jews ? 
" and yet he meaneth fpiritual degrees of puniihment. Thus, too, 
" in 1 Cor. ix. 13. the whole fervice of the fancluary is called the 
" altar (he that ferveth at the altar, muft live of the altar) ; yet 
" there is no fuch altar erected amongft us as was amongft the 
" Jews. And the prophets alfo, prophefying of the times of 
" the gofpel, fpake of our ordinances anew to be inftitutcd in Old-- 
" Teftament language; fo, in Ifaiah ixvi. 33. They pall go from 
" one new moon to another. Though,, under the gofpel, we have 
<c not monthly feafts and meetings as they had, yet the meetings 
" that we have are exprefied thereby." From which he concludes, 
that " though Chrift ufeth the fame words to exprefs the inftitu- 
€< tion of the new churches of the gofpel by, yet it follows not- 



Letter VI. 



101 



sdly, Though it could not be eftablifhed that there is 
a reference to the Jewifh fynagogues in this paflage, it 
feems equally fair, and much more confiftent, to under- 
ftand by the term church, the elders of the congregation, 
than the congregation itfelf. 

Nothing is more common than to fay that a thing is 
to be done to, or for a body, which is done only to, or 
by thofe of that body who reprefent the whole, and to 
whom it is competent. And no phrafeology was more 

" that it is of the fame kind with the old, or that it runneth in 
" the fame way." But to this it is anfwered, that this paffage is 
net here advanced as an argument for Prejbyiery, though it has been 
often brought forward with triumph, as an invincible argument 
in fupport of Independency — that all that is maintained is fimply 
this, That if we confider the allufion, if it proves any thing, as 
viewed in itfelf, and without going elfewhere to difcover the con- 
ftitution of the church, it is in favour of the former, and not of 
the latter, and confequently that the argument which has fo 
often been drawn from it for Independency neceflarily falls. As 
we mud: have believed, from the paflages produced from Goodwin, 
that there mould be altars, and new moons, and degrees of external 
funilbment among Chriftians, the fame with thofe which we are 
affured exifted among the Jews, unlefs it could be evinced from 
athtr paflages, that a change was enjoined ; fo it is no lefs mani- 
feft from the prcient paffage, that the government of the Chrif- 
tian church, in the point here fpecified, mud refemble that of the 
Jewiih fynagogue, by the name of which it is called, unlefs it can 
be demonftrated from other faffages y that it is appointed to be 
altered. And it will not fuffice to eftablifti this idea, to inform 
us that the term church, when applied, as in this place, to a 
Chriftian congregation, moft commonly, in the New Teftament, 
denotes the whole of the members as well as the rulers, fince it 
is certain that it was understood in the fame latitude of flgnifica- 
tion when applied alfo to a Jewifh fynagogue, and yet we know 
that,wjhen a complaint was told in it before the members at large, 
it was the rulers alone who judged refpecling it. Granting there- 
fore all that is defired even by Independents, as to the proper 
import of the term church, or ixxXwiu,, no argument can be de- 
duced from it in confirmation of their fyflera. 

13 



102 



Letter VI. 



common among the Jews, than to fay that a thing was 
done by a congregation, which was done only by the 
elders or rulers of that congregation. Thus, in the cafe 
of the manflayer (Numb. xxxv. 24, 25.), it is faid, that 
41 the congregation of the city to which the manflayer and 
cs the avenger of blood belonged, mould judge between 
" them. And that the congregation mould reftore him 
" to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled ; and 
<( that he fhould abide in it till the death of the high- 
u prieft." Yet if Mofes may be allowed to explain his 
own words, even where this is fo frequently afcribed to 
the congregation, it was the elder s of the city alone who 
performed it. " But if any man," fays he (Deut xix. 
11, 12.), " hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, 
" and rife up againft him, and finite him mortally that 
" he die, and fleeth into one of thefe cities, then the 
" elders of his city mall fend, and fetch him thence, and 
" deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood, " 
(i. e. after judging him) " that he may die." Here 
we fee that what is »n one place repeatedly afcribed to 
the congregation, is in the other afferted to be done only 
by the elders ; and we are allured that it was the 
prerogative of the elders alone, agreeably to the divine 
appointment (Deut. xvi. 18.), to judge the people. In 
Jofli. xx. 4, 5. it is alfo faid, that " when the manflayer 
*' that doth flee into one of thefe cities, (ball Hand at 
" the entering of the gate of the city, and fhall declare 
6( his caufe in the ears of the elders of the city * ; and 
" they fhall take him to the city unto them, and give him 
" a place that he may dwell among them. And if the 
" avenger of blood purfue after him, then they fhall not 
M deliver the flayer into his hand ; becaufe he fmote 

* The ufual judges who fat in the gate; and who, if the city 
contained only a hundred and twenty families, amounted merely 
to three ; and if it contained more, according to Joiephus, amount* 
ed to feven, and according to the TainuuHftsj to twenty-three. 



Letter VI. 103 

" his neighbour unwittingly, and hated hirn not before 
ct time." And yet it is fubjoined, that " he mould 
u dwell in that city, until he ilood before the congregation 
" f or judgment" Thus we perceive that while the 
congregation of the city from which he fled, are faid, in 
this paffage, to have judged in the cafe of the manflayer, 
in the preceding words we are told that the perfons in 
the city to which he efcaped, who heard and decided 
upon his cafe, were the elders ; and confequently, as the 
government of every city was the fame, it muft have 
been the elders who were to hear and judge of his con- 
duct in the city from which he came, while yet we are 
told that he was to ftand before the congregation. 
Accordingly we find, from Philo, jofephus, and other 
Jewifh writers, that it was the elders alone, and not the 
people, who judged in their cities ; and that the congrega- 
tion, being confidered as doirg it by them, were faid 
themj elves to have ex ere if ed the power of judgment, though 
it was veiled in and exercifed only by the elders. 
Agreeably to this, likewife, the Greek tranflators, in their 
verfion of the Old Teftament, render kahal, the llrongeft 
Hebrew word denoting the congregation, in Prov. 
xxvi. 26. by cvvz^^iov, a council or ajfembly of elders *. 

* It is the.fame word which is ufed in Luke xxii. 66. and Acts 
iv. 15. to fignify the council of the high-pried:, the elders, and 
the fcribes. See alfo Pafor, who quotes Demoflhenes, according 
to the principle which has been now flated, as employing the 
word ixxX'/iiricc, the word rendered church in Matthew, and the 
term mod frequently ufed in the Septuagint, even according to 
Independents, as the tranflation of kahal or congregation, for an 
affembly of nobles who were rulers. " EtpojZowro £s s|«/<pv>?j 
" saxXncict yivnr&i'" " Ubi accipi videtur (fays he), pro concione 
" magnatum repente convocatorum," i. e. " It feems to denote here 
" an affembly of nobles or riders fuddenly convened." And fee, too, 
the author of the Guide to Zion, p. 5. and Ainfworth, in his 
Counterpoifon, p. 113. who, though very keen and very refpetl- 
able ancient Independents, admitted that the word iK*tovM» tare 



104 Letter VI. 

Since then it is plain, from thefe as well as other 
paffages in the Old Teftament, that it was common for 
things to be reprefented as ftrongly as told to and judged 
of by the congregation, as what is mentioned in Matthew 
to be told to the church, while yet it is certain that it 
was only the elders of the congregation who were 
intended ; is it not equally obvious, that when an offended 
Chriftian is there commanded to tell the church of the 
fault of his brother, even though there was no reference 
to the Jewiih fynagogue, that it fnmy be the elders of the 
church alone who are defigned, provided that it can be 
proved from other paffages, that the government of the 
church is committed only to the former, as the govern- 
ment of each of the cities of Ifrael was committed only 
to the judges who fat in the gate*? But that the 
government of the church is veiled only in the former, 
as the government of each of the cities of Ifrael was 
intruded to the latter, has already been attempted to be 
demonftrated ; and confequently it will no more follow, 
though an offence is commanded to be told to and judged 
of by the church, that every member is intended by the 
term church, than that becaufe the manilayer was required 

rendered the church, is ufed repeatedly by the Seventy for the 
fanhedrin, who undoubtedly were an aiTembly only 'of rulers. 

* Chryfoltom, one of the early fathers after Chrirt, who muft 
certainly have been acquainted with what was at that time the 
conftitution of the Chriftian church, evidently undei flood this 
pafTage, not in the fenfe of Independents, but in the feme which 
is at prefent attached to it by Prefbyterians. As quoted by Zan- 
chius, in Quart. Prsscept. and by Junius, Contr. iii. lib.ii. cap, vi. 
in his expofition of this place in Matthew, he afTtrts. that by the 
church, to whom the offence was to be told, was intended the 
K^o&oci kui x-gozrarts , the prefidents and rulers, who, as in I ThefT. v. 
12, 13. are always reprefented in the facred volume, and are 
admitted even by Independents themfelves, to be diftinguithed 
from the people, who are not allowed by them to be nominal 
governors. 



Letter VI. 105 

to tell his caufe before the congregation of any of the cities 
of Ifrael, and " even ftand before them for judgment," 
every Ifraelite, who was a member of that congregation, 
was warranted, by the term congregation^ to erect himfelf 
into a judge by the law of God. 

Your argument, in fine, againfl Prejhyter'ics and Synods, 
and other courts of review, from their not being mention- 
ed in this pafTage, though frequently urged alio by other 
Independents, appears to be moil inconclufive. It is 
fimply this, that becaufe a tiring is not mentioned in one 
pafTage of fcripture that treats of a particular fubject, it 
is not to be found in another that relates to the fame 
fubje& ! But would not. this, if followed out, lead us to 
fet afide important parts of almofl every doctrine and 
inftitution of Chriflianity, few of which, we know, are 
fully contained in one pafTage, and mofl of which are to 
be collefted completely only from different pa flages i 
Befides, even granting that courts of review are not fpeci- 
fied, a very good reafon feems to be fuggefted, from the 
pafTage itfelf, why they mould not at leaft be directly 
mentioned. It is obvious that an appeal could only 
have been made to a fuperior court, if the brother ivho <was 
offended had not received juflice from the court to which 
he at firft applied ; for it is he alone who is reprefented 
as bringing the matter before an ecclefiaflical aflembly 
for their determination. Such a cafe however is not 
here fuppofed ; for it is exprefsly flated, that the firjl 
court to which he applied gave a dccifion in his favour. 
But if the firjl court, as has been faid, is here fuppofed 
to have given a deciflon in his favour ; and if the 
offending brother is never faid to have thought himfelf 
aggrieved by the decifion which this court pafTed againft 
him ; and, as is infinuated, was even totally unfolicitous, 
and completely regardlefs, of bringing it before an 
ecclefiaflical court at all ; what propriety would there 
have been of introducing the poffibility of an appeal to . 



io6 



Letter VI. 



a higher court ? Thus, then, it appears that even 
admitting that fuch courts are not here mentioned, the 
omiflion is fuch as might naturally have been expedied, 
and that no argument can be urged againft them from 
this omiflion, if it can be proved upon that particular 
divifion of our lubje6l, that they are clearly authorized 
by the word of God. 



LETTER VII. 

SIR, 

Y ou remark in the next place (p. 34. and 35.)* tnat 
the principles of Independency feem to be eftablifhed 
with equal decilion in the fifth chapter of the Firft Epiftle 
to the Corinthians. As you have not however even hinted 
at the common arguments deduced by Independents from 
this paffage, for the right of members to judge in the 
church, though you endeavour to prove from it, that a 
congregation cannot be fubjecled to the review of a 
Pre/bytery, permit me, before I confider the inferences 
which you draw from it for the latter pofition, to flate 
very briefly the arguments for the former, as ^mentioned 
by Mr. Cotton, an eminent ancient American Inde- 
pendent, in his book entitled, u The Keys of the King- 
" dom," p. 44. 45. 46. He tells us in the 1 ft place, 
That the reproof for not proceeding to a fentence againil 
the inceuuous perfon is directed to the whole as well 
as to the Prefbytery. " They are all blamed for not 
u mourning," iffc. t Cor. v. 2. 2dly, They are all 
commanded, when they are gathered together, to pro- 
ceed againft him. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. " In the name of our 
" Lord Jefus Chrift, when ye are gathered together, 
" to deliver fuch an one unto Satan. " And again, in 
ver. 13. " Therefore put away from among yourfelves 



BETTER VII. IO7 

<; that wicked perfon." In the 3d place, He declares 
this acl: of theirs, in putting him away, to be a judicial 
act ; for, fays he (ver 12.), " do not ye judge them that 
" are within V f And 4thly, Upon his exhibiting evidence 
of his repentance, the Apoftle enjoins the brethren at 
large, as well as the elders, to forgive him : 2 Cor. 
ii. 4. — 10. . This, I believe, you will allow to be as 
able a ftatement of the arguments of Independents, which 
are drawn from this pafTage, as is any where to be found ; 
and I confefg that I confider it as much more plaufible 
than any thing I have met with in Goodwin, Owen, Glafs, 
or any other Independent. Even thefe however I can 
by no means admit to be valid arguments in fupport of 
this fcheme, unlefs it could be cftablifhed, independently of 
them, from other pafTages * ; and contend that while the 
pafTages which have been already produced in favour of 
Prefbytery feem totally inexplicable on any other fcheme, 
this paiTage, as well as that which was laft mentioned, 
feems to be equally explicable upon the principles of 
Prefoyterians as upon thofe of Independents. 

In confirmation of this general remark I obferve, that 
when Paul reproves the whole of the Corinthians 
(1 Cor. v. 2.) " becaufe they had not mourned, " he 
does not fay that he blamed them becaufe they had not 
all exercifed the power with which according to Inde- 
pendents they were invefted, and excommunicated him 
ihemfelves, as judges or governors; but what flrongly 
indicates that they had no fuch power — that, as the 
effect of this mourning, " he who had done this might be 
" taken away from among them." Now, though all the 
members are cenfured for not mourning, might not this 
cenfure be delivered to them upon the principles of 

* PafTages, I rrrean, which completely preponderate in clear- 
nefs and cogency over thofe which are urged for the Prefbyterian 
fcheme, and palfages which cannot be interpreted upon it, 



io8 Letter VIL 

Prefbyterians, as well as upon thofe of Independents ; 
for is it not the duty of the members, as well as of the 
rulers, though they do not judge, to mourn on account 
of the grofs impurity of a Chriftian brother ? And if 
the rulers neglect, as in this inftance at Corinth, to mark 
their public difapprobation of his conduct, by inflicting 
upon him the merited punifhment, is it not much more the 
duty of the members I Befides, when they are not com- 
manded to mourn that they themfelves had not taken him away, 
but limply that, as the confequence of their for row, ftirring up 
their rulers to a fenfe of their duty, he might be taken 
away from them, is it not plain that this paflage, inftead 
of favouring the principles of Independency, feems fairly 
to eflablifh the very oppofite, and that the power of 
difcipline is vetted in the elders, and not in the members 
of the church ? 

Nor will the command of Paul to the Corinthians, 
M to deliver up the inceftuous perfon to Satan when they 
<c were gathered together, and to put away from among 
€i themfelves that wicked perfon," with his declaration 
that they had a power M to judge them who were 
" within," fuffice to prove that the members at large 
exercifed a fimilar power with thofe who were their rulers 
in adminiilering the government of that Chriftian church. 
That they are fufceptible of this interpretation, if viewed 
In themfelves, and without attending to other paffages of 
fcripture, I readily grant — but not more fo than thofe 
paffages which affert that Chrift is the propitiation for 
the fins not only of the Jews, but of the whole world, 
and that he gave himfelf a ranfom for all, if confidered 
merely in themfelves, are fufceptible of an explication 
which excludes the doctrine of particular, and eftablifhes 
the Arminian doctrine of univerfal redemption. Now, 
if you would deny the inference deduced by Arminians 
from thefe latter paffages in fupport of their fyftem, by 
obferving that thefe paffages are no lefs fufceptible of an 



Letter VII. 109 

explication upon Calvinific than upon Armiman principles, 
while at the fame time you produce a greater number of 
paffages, ftronger and more decided, which cannot be 
explained upon the principles of Arminians, is it not 
equally fair, if it can be proved that even the ftrongeft 
expreflions in this place, defcriptive of the power of the 
church of Corinth, can be explained equally upon the 
principles of Prefoyterians as upon thofe of Independents, 
while at the fame time a number of other paffages can be 
adduced in favour of Prefoytery totally inexplicable upon 
the Independent plan — is it not equally fair, I fay, to 
maintain that thefe expreffions, in this place, no more 
eftablifh the principles of Independency, than the expref- 
fions in the other inflance, which are no lefs energetic, 
eftablifh the principles of univerfal redemption P 

Can fuch expreflions however as thofe which are here 
ufed be equally explained upon the fuppofition of Prefby- 
terians, that it is the rulers of the church, and not the 
members at large, who are intended ? Yes ; for as was 
remarked, nothing is more common than to reprefent a 
thing as done by a body at large, while it is done only 
by thofe in that body to whom it is competent. Thus 
we are informed in fcripture, that the great city Rome 
reigned over 'the kings of the earth (Rev. xvii. 18.), 
while yet we know that the world was governed, at the 
period referred to, not by the citizens of Rome, but by the 
emperor and fenate ; and thus nothing is more frequent, 
both in fpeech and writing, than to fay that the people of 
Great Britain govern their American colonies, while it is 
only the king and parliament who thus govern them. 
Thus, too, we fee that precepts are often addreffed to 
bodies in general to be obferved by them, which yet 
could be obferved only with propriety by thofe who were 
their rulers, while, at the fame time, others are to fulfil, 
in their various fpheres. what is perfonally required from 

K 



no 



Letter. VIL 



them. " If thy brother," faid Mofes to the people of 
Ifrael (Deut. xiii. 6. £sV.), " the fori of thy mother, or 
" thy fori, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bofom, 
11 or thy friend which is as thine own foul, entice thee 
" fecretly, faying, Let us go and ferve other gods — 
" (ver. 8.) thou malt not confent unto him, nor hearken 
" unto him ; neither (hall thine eye pity him, neither 
" /halt thou fpare, neither malt thou conceal him ; but 
€i thou (halt furely kill him." Now, who would imagine, 
from this command of Mofes, that the lfraelites at large 
were to kill any perfon who mould entice them to idolatry, 
till he was previoufly tried and condemned by the judges 
upon the depofition of witneffes ? And yet is it not 
obvious that this injunction is here addrefTed to them at 
large> as flrongly and dire&ly as the command is here 
addrefTed by Paul to the members at Corinth, to puniih 
the inceftuous perfon of whom he fpeaks ? Is it not plain 
alfo, that every Ifraelite was as much authorized by thefe 
words of his lawgiver, viewed in themfelves, to judge 
and put to death fuch an enticer to idolatry^ as the 
Corinthians were aphorized by thefe words of Paul, to 
judge and excommunicate their offending brother ? And 
are not the Jews in general often reproved by the 
prophets (fee Jer. v. 28. and vi. 5. EsV.) for moft flagrant 
violations of equity in the public adminiftration of juftice, 
as well as for other crimes, which could be committed 
only by their rulers ? But who would imagine from 
this, that every Ifraelite was a civil judge, or that it was 
not the rulers alone who were refponfible for thefe crimes ; 
and that notwithstanding the general exprelfions which 
are employed, that the people were only acceflary to the 
guilt, in as far as they approved of their conduct, and did 
not witnefs againft it ? Befides, is it not, notwithstand- 
ing, undername, that thefe paffages as plainly and exprefsly 
enjoin every Ifraslite to adminifter public juftice with 



Letter. VII. 



in 



fidelity and impartiality *, as the Apoftle tells the 
members of the church at Corinth, that they might judge 
them who were within their communion, and might put 
away from themfelves wicked perfons ? And is it not 
manifeft, that they as explicitly blame the Ifraelites at 
large, though they were not judges, for not adminiftering 
juftice in this manner, as that the Apoftle blames the 
Corinthians in general for not putting away the inceftuous 
perfon ? If, then, while the Ifraelites at large are com- 
manded to adminifter public juftice with fidelity and 
impartiality, it will not follow that each of them was 
authorized to be a civil judge, becaufe the power of 
judging appears, from other pajfages y to have been com- 
mitted to thofe who were appointed to be rulers ; it will 
no more follow, that though the Corinthians are informed 
that they were to judge thofe who were within their 
communion, that every Corinthian member was to be a 
judge, if it can be proved, as has been attempted, from 
other paiTages, that this power is veiled in the elders alone, 
and that every member is not entitled, either nominally 
or really, to the power of a ruler. And if, while the 
Ifraelites in general were blamed for not thus- adminiftering 
juftice, it was the rulers alone,, and not the people, who 
were intended, though the latter alfo were reprobated, fo 
far as they acquiefced in their conduct, and did not teftify 
againft it ; it is equally inconteftable, that fince, as we 
have endeavoured to demonftrate, there are fimilar rulers 
in every Chriftian church, to whom the government is 
intruded, though the Corinthians at large are cenfured 

* See alfo Deut. xvi. 19. where after it had been mentioned in 
the preceding verfe, that judges were to be appointed in the gates 
of every city, who alone were to judge the people, it is faid not- 
withstanding to every Ifraelite> " Thou (halt not wreft judgment, 
" thou fhalt not refpect perfons, neither take a gift : for a gift 
" doth blind the eyes of the wife, and pervert the words of the, 
" righteous." 

K 2 



112 



Letter VII. 



for not excommunicating the offender, it was the rulers 
clone who were referred to by the Apoftle, and that no 
argument of courfe can be deduced from this palTage for 
the right of the members, in common with the minifters* 
to adminifter the affairs of the church of God *. 

Thus even though it were granted, that the inceftuous 
perfon was to be delivered over to Satan when the whole 
of the members were met together, it will not follow that 
every one of them, in a judicial capacity, was fo to deliver 
him up, but only the rulers ; for it has been contended 
even by many Prefbyterians, with Cyprian of old, that 
whatever is done, mould be done in the prefence of all 
the members of the church for their fatisfa&ion \ . But 

* From this reafoning alfo, if valid and concluuve againft the 
poflibility of proving from thefe general expreflions that the Co- 
rinthians nominally and oftenfibly ruled as well as their elders, it is 
no lefs plain that it cannot be evinced from them that they judged 
and voted in any form, any more than it can be eftablifhed from 
the expreflions employed refpecling the Iiraelites, that their con- 
sent and vote were necelTary to be aiked before any fentence could 
be pafTed by their civil judges. 

f We know however, as will afterwards be noticed, that in the 
cafe of the reference of the church of Antioch to that at Jerula- 
lem, the apofrtes, and elders, and brethren, did not repair to An- 
tioch to difcufs the matter in the hearing of thefe Chriftians, and 
anfwer their objections; and we will attempt to (hew, that it was 
not an extraordinary initance. And even your brother Mr. Ewing, 
who quotes with fuch approbation (p. 83.) the words of Hales 
refpe&ing the Synod of Dort, " That it went like a watch ; the 
<£ main wheels of which, upon which the whole bufinefs turns, 
" are leaft in fight ; for all things of moment were acted in pri- 
w vate feffions ; and what was done in public, was only for mew 
" and entertainment :" that man, I fay, who quotes with fuch 
approbation this fneer at the fecrecy of the proceedings of this 
Synod, himfelf contends, as was before obferved, for a fimilar 
fecrecy in fome of the deliberations in his church. " Every thing,'* 
he affirms, as was formerly remarked, " is not to be brought even 
" before an Independent church for general difcuffion, or for ob- 
" taining a public declaration of the mind of each member before 



Letter VIL 



113 



is It a neceffary confequence, that becaufe discipline was 
to be exercifed in the prefence of all the members, each of 
them was to exercife it ? Though the court of civil juftice, 
in a particular town, may be held by the magiftrates in 

" the office-bearers mall prefume to put it in practice." He even 
afTerts that to do fo, " would deprive the church of the benefit of 
" government, and would endanger the caufe of truth and of Chrif* 
" tiari liberty." He infinuates of courfe, that fome of the meet- 
ings and proceedings, even of their office-bearers, muft be private/ 
and even explicitly declares (p. 36. 37-)> that " if any of their 
" members are offended by the decifions of the office-bearers in 
" thefe private meetings, and cannot prevail with them to change 
" their opinion, they mud Separate from the church.'" It feems 9 
then, that even alfo in this gentleman's Independent congregation , 
while he fmiles at the jeft when uttered againft Prefbyterians, 
hi a number of inftances, " the office-bearers are like a watch; the 
" main ivhee/s of which, upon which the whole bufi?iefs turns, 
«* are le aft in fight ; for things, even of fuch moment as that a 
" difference of fcntiment warrants reparation, are atled in private 
" S e ffi on * S anc * the liberty of fpeaking, at leaft: upon them, which is 
M granted to the members when they are announced in public, 
" after they have been determined by the office-bearers, is only 
" for foew and entertainment." 

If he fays, it is only in trivial matters, and matters which are 
obvious, that the office-bearers are allowed to deliberate and de- 
termine alone, without the prefence and concurrence of the mem- 
bers ; it is anfwered, that they are matters, a difference of 
fentiment upon which, by his own acknowledgment, war- 
rants feparation, and authorizes Chriftians, agreeably to the 
paffage of fcripture which he cites (2, Tim. iii. 5.), " to turn 
" away" from the communion of thofe who hold them, and to 
diilblve the mod folemn and endearing relations. Is fach a fepa- 
ration however to take place, which is often reprefented in the 
word of God as a thing fo ferious, and are fuch relations to be 
diffolved, which conftitute an u'nion fo important and intimate, for 
things which are obvious and trivial in their nature ? If fo, how 
light and infignificant indeed mult feparation from a church appear 
to Independents who adopt his fentiments, and how precarious 
and dangerous mud: be the fituation of thofe focieties where they 
are afted upon as a principle ! Need we be furprized at thofe fre- 

K 3 * 



H4 



Letter. VII. 



the prefence of the inhabitants, who are invited perhaps 
to attend, does it follow that every inhabitant, though 
not officially a judge, is allowed either to fpeak or vote 
upon the decifions which are paffed, before they are 

quent fuceeflive changes which appear in the conduct of fome of 
their members, who are authorized by one of the molt eminent 
and zealous of their minifters, fupported as he imagines by the 
command of fcripture, to move from their communion upon the 
leaft alteration in their fentiments, and conftitute a new church, 
which again mud be broken down into innumerable fragments 
upon every new alteration, though trivial and uninterelting ? 
Such privileges may perhaps be dignified by fome with the name 
of liberty, but it is a liberty which feems.to be more worthy of 
the name of liccntiovfnefs. And however it may be Anted. to the 
difpofitions of thofe who, from impatience of controul, cannot 
brook that their propofals lliould not uniformly be followed in 
the fociety to which they belong, or from imaginary advancing 
perfection in knowledge, are continually changing in fome degree 
their opinions, it appears to be little fitted to promote the honour 
or intereft of religion, or to fubferve the advancement of practical 
godlinefs. Nothing undoubtedly more directly tends to deaden 
the influence of this principle in the heart, than the indulgence 
of a reftlefs fchifmatic fpirit, even for matters of indifference, for 
v/hich thefe words of Mr. Ewing prefent fuch toleration. And 
nothing evidently more infallibly leads to injure the caufe of 
Chriftianity in the world, than fuch repeated changes of religious 
fellowship, and renunciations of fo important and endearing rela- 
tions for every trifle, to which the fyftem of this gentleman pre- 
fents fuch encouragement. 

If it be urged, that he does not recommend, but only permits, 
thefe feparations; it is anfwered, that he declares in the moft 
decided terms (p. 37.), * that thofe who cannot make their bre- 
" thren hear them in what they believe to be the doctrine of 
" fcripture (*. e. by the fuppofition, even in trivial matters) 
** are at perfeft liberty, as they are in duty bound, from fuch bre- 
" thren to turn away : a Tim. iii. 5." And it is remarkable that 
the palTage which he adduces for this feparation, even for thefe 
trivial differences, denotes a turning away from them, which is 
totally incompatible even with their participating occafionally in 
the facrament ©f the fupper with the men whom they thus leave, 



Letter VTF. 



adopted ? Admitting, alfo, that all the Corinthians were 
to put away from themfelves this wicked perfon, it can- 
not be inferred that every member was to do fo, either 
virtually or nominally, as an ecclefiaftical judge, but, as 

If it be alleged on the contrary, to fave his honour, that it is 
matters of importance about which Mr. Ewing fpeaks, and by dif- 
ference of opinion upon which, he confiders reparation as warrant- 
able ; it is replied, that fuch an affirmation is completely oppofite 
to the whole of his reafoning in the two preceding pages, which 
avowedly refers only to things " trivial and obvious." And it 
difcovers a very ftriking inconfiftency in this writer, who, while 
he profelTes to be an Independent, and to tranfatt all his bufmefs 
of fuperior importance in the prefence of his membeiSj and with 
their vote and confent, aiTerts> according to this view, ih the pre^ 
fent paftage, that the office-bearers alone are occafionally to decide 
in private, and even upon points of the higheft magnitude, and 
that nothing remains for the members, when they are laid before 
them in public, but compliance, or reparation!!. Inftead there- 
fore of viewing him or his congregation as Independents, mud they 
not more properly be confidered as Jfanding alone amidft the reft 
of their brethren ? And rnftead of being claffed with the other 
Tabernacle Congregational focieties, fince their principles are a 
mixture of ' Independency and Prefbytery, might they not more ac- 
curately be denominated the New Prejbyterian Independent Church ? 

The fum, then, of thefe remarks is briefly this, that the matters 
of which he fpeaks are either trivial ; and confequently it muft 
be confidered as one of the principles of his church, that Jeparaticn 
for trifles, however inftgnificant, is the duty of Chrijiians : or the 
points to which he refers are primary and important ; and of 
courfe it will follow, as he affirms, that the office-bearers are to 
decide refpecting them, without allowing the members to be pre- 
fent, or to judge and vote ; that while he avow r s himfelf an Inde» 
pendenty he is in fact a Prejbyterian ; and that his people, who 
imagine themfelves pofTeiTed of the pirrejt congregational liberty, are 
fubject to all the power and authority of Prejhytery y which to 
you and your brethren appear fo defpotic. 

In fine, it is remarkable that while there is nothing in Pref- 
bytery to prevent the meetings of its ecclefiaftical rulers from 
being as open to the hearing and attendance of the people as thofe 
of Independents, and while even their moft private meetings, even 



n6 



Letter VII. 



has been already evinced, only the elders ; while at the fame 
time it was his duty, by every proper teftimony of refpeft- 
ful acquiefcence in the fentence of the latter, and by ab- 
ftaining even from all unneceiTary intercourfe with the of- 

upon the mod delicate points, are open to all who have bufmefs 
in them, their proceedings commonly are much more public, for 
the examination of the world, than thofe of the latter. While 
not a Tingle ftranger of another denomination, and much lefs of 
the profane and irreligious of men, is permitted to be prefent 
during the difcuflions which take place in an Independent church, 
the confultations and difcuillons of a Prefbytery, or Synod, or 
General AiTembly, are concealed from none, but are conducted in 
the audience and under the fcrutiny of all. Even their moft in- 
veterate enemies are admitted to hear them, and their determi- 
nations and reafonings are fubmitted to their keeneft and clofeft 
inveftigation. Does not this plan then at leaft, whatever may be 
the occafional faults of its adminiftrators, feem better fitted, in 
this view alfo, to fecure upright and impartial jnf:ice> than that of 
Independency, where every thing is hid from the inspection of 
the world, and not a fingle witnefs of their transactions is admit- 
ted ? If the failings and errors which are fometimes discovered 
in ecclefiaftical courts by Prefbyteiian rulers are better known 
than thofe of Independents, does it not arife from the Superior 
candour and publicity of their fyftem ? and were the deliberations 
and debates of Independent churches as open to our infpeclion, 
might we not witnefs in them alfo no lefs imperfection and im- 
propriety ? And upon the whole, while fuch is the opennefs and 
publicity of this plan, and while even its moft private bufinefs, 
with the decifion which has been formed upon it, mud: at leaft be 
announced in a public meeting, can we fail to be aftonilhed at 
the alTertion of Mr. Haldane (p. 72. of his Addrefs), that " lefs 
" danger is to be apprehended in a political light, admitting 
" there were caufe for any, from unconnected congregational 
" churches than from thofe called Epifcopalian or Pre/byterian. 
" In the one of thefe" fays he, " a few individuals exercife the 
" whole authority" (fo that it feems there is authority even among 
Independents); "in the other, it is vefted in Seflions, which 
" generally are fmall fecret meetings, Synods, and Prefbyteries, 
" greater and leiTer affiliated, and correfponding focieties, under 
(i one parent fgciety, called a General AiTembly," Is a body 5 



Letter VII. 



117 



fender in common life *, in his private capacity, to confirm 
their deed. And though it mould be admitted moreover, 
that the " fentence," as we are told, 2 Cor. ii. 6. " was 
" mjlidted by many," it will not follow that it was pajfed 
by many, or all of them, for there is an efTential diftindtion, 
in every government, between the making and the inflidtion 
of a fentence. The former might be performed only by 
a few who were rulers, while the latter might be executed 
by all the members of the church, who were bound to 
concur with the elders, by inflicting the fentence ; and 
who were all, as we have faid, under an obligation to 
refufe to have fellow/hip with him, that he might be 
afhamed, and that others might fear. 

Is it faid, in ftiort, that as all the Corinthians are 
commanded to forgive their offending brother (2 Cor. 
ii. 7. — 10.), they mull all have been rulers ? It is replied, 
that this confequence appears by no means to follow — 
but that all that can be deduced from it is this, that as 
they had all been offended by him in their various Jlations y 
fo they were all to forgive him upon tokens of his repent- 
ance, and exprefs their forgivenefs in a manner which 
was fuited to their Jituation in the church. Thofe who 
were rulers, and were offended by him in that capacity, 
were commanded as fuch to forgive him, and reftore 
him again to the privileges of their fociety ; and thofe 

the greater part of the meetings of whofe rulers are free to the 
hearing and examination of all, and whofe deliberations are only 
private, as in the heft regulated civil authoritative courts, when 
the builnefs requires* it — is this body, I fay, though governed by 
a gradual fubordination of courts, a more ftriking image of thofe 
revolutionary clubs which once threatened the fubverfion and 
deftruction of our kingdom, than a body, almoft all whofe proceed- 
ings are conducted in fecret, and where nothing in the deliberations 
of almoft any of their courts is tranfa&ed in the prefence and 
hearing of the world ? 

* See, and confult particularly, I Cor. v. 9. II. 



Letter VII. 



who were members, and had been offended by him as fuch, 
on account of the difhonour which he had done to God, 
were called asfuch to exprefs their forgivenefs, and reftore 
him once more to the comforts and advantages of private 
fellowfhip. Thus it would appear, that neither from this 
in particular, nor from any other expreffion contained in 
this paflage, we are warranted to conclude that the 
members at large, in common with the rulers, are en- 
titled to govern the church of Chrift. 



LETTER VIII. 

SIR, 

In proof of your opinion you farther affirm (p. 38.), that 
the people muft be admitted to judge and vote, becaufe, 
in the reference to the apoftles and elders at Jerusalem 
from the church of Antioch, u they are reprefentecr as 
all uniting in the decifion that was formed on the 
M queflion appealed/' Thus we are told, that " it 
" pleafed the apoftles and eldersy with the whole church, 
u to fend chofen men of their company to Antioch, with 
" Paul and Barnabas," £sV. ; and " that they wrote 
" letters by them after this manner: The apoftles, and 
" elders, and brethren, fend greeting unto the brethren 
w which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and 
" Cilicia." Let it be fuppofed for a moment, that the 
brethren, here mentioned, were not the other minifters 
who were then at Jerufalem befides the apoftles and 
elders : if it be afferted that thefe members, in any form, 
voted and judged in the cafe referred to, while it feems 
to eftablifh in one view, it completely fubverts in another, 
the fcheme for which it is urged. You argue againft 
Prefbyterians when they attempt to dcmonftrate from 
this paftage, that one congregation, with its rulers, may 



Letter VIII. rig 

be fubjeft to the rulers of a number of congregations 
met as a Prefbytery, and tell them that this cafe was 
extraordinary. Mr. Ewing obferves, in hie Lecture, 
p. 77. that " the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were very 
" generally enjoyed in the church at Jerufalem f and 
feems to infinuate from this, the propriety of their being 
admitted, in a particular view, as ecclefiajlical arbiters, 
to adopt and tranfmit the judgment of the apoftles and 
elders as their judgment. You yourfelf alfo affirm, that 
all who paffed this decifion were under this influence, 
though in different degrees : for while you reprefent the 
apoftles, and elders, and brethren, " as united in mak- 
" ing it," you declare it to be extraordinary ; adding, 
(p. 44.), " if it was not extraordinary, let us fee to 
" what it will lead." But if the argument which is ad- 
vanced by Prefbyterians from this paffage for a court of 
review, above the minifters or elders of a particular con- 
gregation, compofed of the minifters of a number of 
congregations, feems to you inconclufive, becaufe this 
affembly was infpired, and delivered an extraordinary in- 
fpired decifion, muft it not be equally inconclufive when 
urged by Independents for the right of the people to 
judge and vote in their religious affemblies? If the 
minifters and elders of different congregations now, who 
correfpond to the elders affociated with the apoftles, are 
not to judge as a Prejbytery in matters which relate to 
another congregation, becaufe, though they determined 
along with them in the appeal from Antioch, the whole 
of them were guided by a miraculous energy, on what 
principle can it be proved that the people now are to judge 
and vote, becaufe the people at Jerufalem judged and voted 
under the guidance of this extraordinary infallible energy ? 
Is it alleged with Mr. Ewing (p. 78.), that though the 
apoftles and elders were infpired, Prefbyterians allow 
their minifters, whom they call their fuccefTors, though 
not infpired, to judge and rule, and why not allow the 



120 



Letter VIII. 



members now to judge and vote, fince they are the fuc- 
cejfors of thofe ancient members who fat and judged in 
this infpired affembly ? We allow, that if it could be 
proved that this affembly was infpired y no argument 
would be urged by Prefbyterians for the minifters and 
elders of a number of congregations deliberating, as an 
authoritative court of review, in any appeal which is 
made, as in the cafe here recorded, by a fingle church. 
It follows therefore, upon his own principles as well as 
thofe of P re/by terians, that fince he and his brethren con- 
fider this affembly as compofed of perfons fupernaturally 
qualified for the decifion which they delivered, in no 
point of view are they entitled to conclude, from what 
they apprehend to be faid of the brethrens judging in this 
extraordinary meeting, and under this miraculous influence 9 
that members now, upon common occafions, are warrant- 
ed to judge in the church of God. 

The argument, befides, adduced by you and Mr. 
Ewing, in common with Mr. Glafs, for the right of the 
members to judge at prefent in the affairs of the church, 
from what is here faid of the brethren at Jerufalem, if it 
prove any thing, proves undoubtedly too much. It de- 
monilrates not merely. their right to judge and vote in 
matters which relate to their own, but in thofe which 
concern even another congregation. But does not this con- 
tradict a firft principle of Independency, that neither the 
members nor the rulers of one congregation have a right 
to interfere, even according to your own acknowledgment 
(p. 30.), and according to the favourite pofition of Glafs 
which he fo keenly defends *, with any other congrega- 
tion under heaven ? Befides, would not the fubordination 
to which this argument leads, a fubordination of a par- 
ticular congregation, not merely, as Prefbyterians main- 
tain, to the minifters and lay-elders, the ivifejl and mcjl 



* See his Works, vol. i, p. 155.— 202. 



Letter VIII. 



ill 



enlightened cf a number of congregations, but to the members 
indtfcriminately of a lifter-congregation, be much more in- 
tolerable, even upon your own principles, than that for 
which the former contend ? On the whole, whether this 
affembly was infpired, or not infpired, if it be afferted that 
the brethren muft judge now becaufe they judged then, 
it will neceffarily follow, not only that the brethren of 
one congregation may judge in matters which are to bind 
the brethren of another congregation, but that they may 
judge of them finally while the latter are not prefent, nor 
give their confent. But does not this contradict alfo 
another Independent principle, as flated by you, p. 30. 
" That whatever is done by thofe who are appointed to 
u rule, is carried on in the prefence of the general body, 
" and with their confent And will it not completely 
oppofe another favourite pofition of Glafs, and Lockier, 
and other Independents, " That nothing can be binding 
" upon any fociety where their acquiefcence and votes 
a have not previously been afked and obtained P* 

Or is it faid, that the affembly' at Jerufalem was not 
infpired, and that the reference made to them was fimply 
for opinion and advice ? On this fuppofition, no judicial 
power at all was exercifed, no acl: of government was per- 
formed by any of them ; and confequently, though it 
were admitted that the brethren at jerufalem were allow- 
ed, along with the apoftles and elders, to Jlate their opinion. 
upon the controverted points, no argument can be ad- 
duced from it for the right of the brethren at prefent 
to govern and vote in the church. Governing the church 
and exercifng difcipline are certainly very different from 
a mere Jiatement of opinion upon a controverted point, 
which either might be received or rejected. And if the 
apoflles, and elders, and members, in the cafe before us, 
merely gave an advice, and flated an opinion (as is done 
by the occafional affociations of your minifters, while, as 
you declare, p. 31. 32. &c it is not binding upon any 

L 



1.22 



Letter VIIL 



of your congregations), it will never follow that becaufe 
the brethren were permitted to do this, they are autho- 
rized to govern or exercife difcipline. In no view then 
does any argument feem to be deducible from this pafiage, 
for the right of the people to judge and vote in matters 
which relate to the government and difcipline of the 
church of Chriil. 

Again, fuppofing that this affembly at Jerufalem was 
neither an extraordinary afTembly, nor a meeting convened 
merely for delivering an advice, but, as will afterwards at 
lead be attempted to be proved, an authoritative, though an 
uninfplred ecclefiaftical court, I do not fee how any argu- 
ment can be drawn from it for the right of the members 
to judge in the church. If fo, it would follow, as has 
been already faid, that, like the brethren at Jerufalem, 
the brethren now could exercife even an authoritative 
power ; that they would be entitled likewife, like thofe 
at Jerufalem, to govern not only their own, but even 
other congregations ; and that they would be warranted 
alio authoritatively to govern thefe congregations, even 
when they were not prefent, and could not confent to 
their deciilons ; all of which fuppofitions are manifeftly 
inconfiftent with the declared principles of Independents, 
The truth therefore feems to be, according to the fenti- 
ments of fome Prefbyterians, that though the members 
at Jerufalem exprefled their acquiefcence in the decifion 
of the apoftles and elders (a circumftance which could 
not fail to have uncommon weight upon the minds of 
the believing Jews at Antioch, as they muft previoufly 
have been no lets attached than themfelves to the diftin- 
guifhing peculiarities of the law of Mofes), they by no 
means appear to have judged authoritatively, or even 
voted in the matter. It was to the apoftles and elders 
alone, and not to the members, that the church at An- 
tioch are faid to have referred their caufe : Acts xv. 2. 
But if the members at Jerufalem, who were greatly more 



Letter VIII. 



123 



numerous than the apoftles and elders, fat in the court, 
and if the decifion could have been carried only, accord- 
ing to the conftitution of the Chriftian church, if agree- 
able to a majority of them, then fince, on account of 
their number, it muft have been known at Antioch that 
it was they alone principally who were to fix the determi- 
nation, the reference fhould have been made principally 
to them. It is the apoftles and elders, too, alone (ver. 6.) 
who are faid to have come together to confider the matter. 
But if it was confidered by the brethren as well as by them, 
and, as is witneffed at prefent in Independent congregations, 
could not be determined without their confent, how is it that 
they are not mentioned as conftituting a part of that 
aflembly which convened to deliberate on this intereft- 
ing reference. During the deliberation, moreover, it 
was only the apoftles and elders, and not the brethren, 
who are faid to have fpoken ; and w T hen the decifion 
was made, and fent away, it is called " th-e decrees, not 
" of the apoftles, and elders, and brethren" (Ads 
xvi. 4.), as we muft naturally have expected upon the 
principles of Independents, but " the decrees" merely 
" of the apoftles and elders." This appears to be wholly 
inexplicable upon the fcheme of thofe Independents who 
fuppofe that this meeting was but an ordinary alTembly, 
in which the private members fat as well as the apoftles 
and elders, and as they were allowed equally to exprefs 
their judgment and ftate their vote, from their fuperlor 
number, muft have had more influence than they in pann- 
ing the determination. 

It is indeed faid ( Afts xv. 12.), that " all the multi- 
ft tude kept filence, and gave audience to Barnabas and 
u Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had 
" wrought among the Gentiles by them." But allowing 
that by the multitude we are here to underftand the 
private members, and not the body of the apoftles and 
other minifter3, who certainly would conftitute a verv 
L2 



124 



Letter VIII. 



numerous aiTembly, it cannot be demonftrated from their 
being faid to have kept filence during the fpeeches of 
thefe minifters, that they had previoufly fpoken and 
debated in this meeting. All that is neceflarily fuggefted 
is, that during this wonderful narrative of facts, " they 
" were quiet, or held their peace from that noife or 
M murmuring'' which is often witnefTed in multitudes, 
and which, perhaps, might have been experienced during 
the preceding fpeeches ; in other words, they liftened 
attentively. Does it follow however, that becaufe the 
attention of the audience was completely commanded, 
that the whole of the multitude, as well as the apoftles 
and elders, had publicly fpoken as judges upon this occa- 
ilon ? It is alfo faid, that " it pleafed the whole church, 
4t as well as the apoftles and elders (ver. 22.), to fend 
16 chofen men with their determination to Antioch."" 
Admitting however, that by the whole church, or aflembly 
($7CKXn<rict) , is not intended the reft of the office-hearers who 
eompofed this meeting befides the apoftles and elders, it 
deferves to be remarked, fays the ingenious Mr. Muir, 
that what is here ftated refpefting the members, if it be 
the members who are meant, did not take place till the 
deliberation was finiflied, and the fentence was paffed, 
which, as we have now feen, was performed entirely 
by the apoftles and elders. The church, moreover, 
he adds, if we choofe rather to retain this tranflation 
of the word, and intend by it the members, might well 
be faid to be pleafed with the meafure, and to exprefs 
their acquiefcence, though they were not allowed, in 
any view, judicially to fignify their mind refpecting it, 
The apoftles and elders might determine that two of the 
brethren mould go up to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, 
to teftify the acquiefcence of the whole in the decifion, 
and might call upon the multitude, as at the election 
of the deacons, to look out from among themfelves 
two men for this purpofe. Upon their complying with 



Letter VIII. 125 

the requeft, and choofing from among themfelves Judas 
and Silas, it might ftri&ly be faid that it pleafed them as 
well as the apoftles and elders, to fend thefe brethren to 
the church at Antioch, while yet, agreeably to the 
hiftory, they neither publicly judged nor voted in the 
matter. But the letters it may be faid, which were 
written to Antioch, were written in the name of the 
brethren as well as of the apoftles and elders ; and the 
whole of them are reprefented as faying to the church at 
Antioch (ver. 28.), that it feemed good to them as well 
as to the Holy Ghoft, to lay upon them no greater 
burden than neceflary things. It feems plain however, 
that it might be reprefented as pleafing the members, if 
they be referred to, only fo far as acquiejcing in the 
decifion which was made by the apoftles and elders, and 
not as themfelves joining judicially in the deliberation 
and determination ; and that it is in this view that their 
names are inferted in the letters. The reference was not 
made to them, and would they ever have prefumed to 
have judged in a caufe in which they were not appealed 
to ? They are never named among thofe who came 
together to confider the matter, and can we fuppofe that, 
if they did not meet either for deliberation or decifion, 
they determined in this caufe, either 'virtually or ojlenftbly^ 
as ecclefiaftical judges ? Befides, when the facred hiftorian 
fpeaks of the decifion which was contained in thefe letters, 
and of the perfons who paffed it as ecclefiaftical judges, 
he affirms, as has been faid repeatedly, that it was pro- 
nounced only by the apoftles and elders; chap. xvi. 
ver. 4. To make the hiftorian therefore conjlftent with 
him/elf, it is neceiTary to confider him here as telling us, 
that the brethren merely acqutefced in what was done by 
the apofUes and elders. Or if it be faid once more with 
Mr. Ewing *, that though the brethren did not at iirft 



See his Le&ure, p. 77. near the foot. 

L3 



Letter VIII. 



judge in this'appeal, yet they had the honour of adopting 
and tranfmlttlng the judgment of the apoftles and elders 
as their judgment ? It is anfwered, that if this amounted 
to any thing mere than a mere declaration of their 
acquiefcence and approbation — if it contained in it any 
thing which can be confidered as judicial, it is liable to 
all the objections we have mentioned. It was a tranf- 
mitting their judgment as ecclefiaftical judges, in a cafe 
in which they were never appealed to : it was a judicial 
examination and decifion of a matter which they are 
never even faid to have affembled with the apoftles and 
elders to confider ; and it was a tranfmitting their judge- 
ment with all the authority of arbiters (if they too, as 
he affirms, p. 78. at the top, are among the perfons who 
declare that it feemed good to them judicially to lay upon 
the difdples at Antloch necciTary burdens), while, even 
upon tk„ gentleman's principles, and thofe of every Inde- 
pendent, they were not entitled to lay upon them any bur- 
den ; and while, as has been ftated, in the account after- 
wards delivered of thofe who then judged, and laid this 
burden upon the difciples, their name is never mentioned; 
How could the brethren of ^congregation lay judicially 
any neceffary burdens upon the brethren of another con- 
gregation, call it an adopting or tranfmitting the judg- 
ment of the apoftles and elders, or what you pleafe ? Or 
if it was not an ojlenfibk judicial power, but fimply of the 
kind which is claimed by the members of an Independent 
t :ongregatlon that is fuppofed to have been exercifed by 
thefe members at Jerufalem, upon what ground, and I 
requejl it to be particularly confidered, could they exercife 
even this over the members at Antioch ? Is it confiftent 
with the difttnguifhing principles of Independents, to 
allow to the members of one of their churches the fame 
power of judging over the members of another, by 
whatever name you call it, which is uniformly exerted by 
them before any thing can be paffed in their own fociety I 



Letter VIII. 127 

But If it be repugnant even to the principles of Independents 
themfelves, to grant to the members of one congregation- 
the fame power of judging as to the affairs of another 
which they aflume in their own, upon what ground can 
they affirm that a power merely of this kind, though 
nominally inferior to that of the minifters, was exercifed 
by the members of the church at Jerufalem, though 
affociated with the apoftles and elders, over the members 
at Antioch ? On the whole it may be remarked, that 
as Mr. Ewing admits (p. 77.) that from this decifion 
of the apoftles there was no dijfent or appeal, even though 
it mould be granted that the brethren were allowed to 
adopt and tranfmit to the church at Antioch their 
judgment as thdr own, it feerns impoffible to eftablifh 
from it the right of the brethren not only to adopt, 
if they are pleafed, but, as is frequently witneffed, 
to rejeel and nullify, if they are diffatisfied, the decifions 
of their office-bearers. Becaufe they were permitted, in 
one inftance, to teftify their approbation of the determina- 
tion of their rulers, and adopt, as their judgment, a judg- 
ment from which they could neither dijfent nor appeal, 
will it ever follow that if they are not pleafed with a 
decifion or propofal of their rulers, they have power to 
fet it afide, and bring forward another, however contrary 
to the mind of the former ? 

On a review, then, of this as weM as the preceding paf- 
fages, on which your feheme is founded, it does not appear 
that we are warranted by them to believe that the mem- 
bers of the church, in every deliberation, are to exprefs 
their judgment, and ftate their vote ; while, from the 
various arguments which were adduced before, it feems 
neceffarily to follow that the elders alone, without the 
confent and judgment of the people, are authorized to 
govern the church of God, 



C 1^8 1 



APPENDIX to LETTER VIII. 

Whatever may be the declarations of fcripture 
with regard to this matter, it has been urged by Inde- 
pendents with the utmofi: confidence, that ecclefiaftical 
antiquity univerfally affirms that fuch privileges were 
granted to the Chriftian people in the primitive church, 
Mr. Ewing, in particular, has quoted with approbation 
King's Inquiry into the Primitive Church, as fupporting 
his opinion, " that the largeft churches, in the third 
" century, were only (ingle congregations and Glafs 
has adduced the authority of Cyprian, to mew that, at 
that period, every thing was done according to the 
determination of the people. But admitting that thefe 
affertions could not be di (proved, it might be fufficient 
to reply to them in the very decided expreffions of the 
firft: of thefe writers, refpe&ing the validity of arguments 
deduced from antiquity againfi the doctrine of Lay-preach- 
ing. " Mr. Dick," fays he, in his Remarks upon a 
Sermon in Refutation of Lay-preaching, " confirms his 
" argument," to ufe Mr. Ewing's own dignified fat'ire, 
" by fome anecdotes taken from ecclefiaftical hiltory. As 
" my Bible Hops at the end of the book of the Revelation, 
16 / am not very careful to anfwer in thefe matters," Why 
then, if the word of God be perfect, and fitted to fur- 
nifh us thoroughly for every good work, mould Indepen- 
dents wifh that Prefbyterians mould be careful to anfwer 
them in this matter, even allowing that they could demon- 
lira te that in the primitive churches, it was by the vote 
of the people that every meafure was adopted or rejected ? 
Befides, we are certain from the facred oracles, as well 
as the earlieil ecclefiaftical writers, that many flagrant 
errors were admitted in the church, both in the days of 
the apoflles, and in the period which immediately fucceed- 



Appendix, &c. 



129 



cd their death *. To prove that a thing is lawful 
or proper, it is not fufficient to tell us, that it was 
very generally practifed by the church in the primi- 
tive ages, but it mud be {hewn to be agreeable to the 
word of God. To this llandard we are to bring their 
practices as well as their doctrines ; and by it alone, not- 
withflanding their proximity to the apoftles in point of 
time, are to decide -whether what was admitted and 
followed by them mould be adopted and imitated, cr 
rejected and fet afide. 

Even when we examine the remains of ecclefiaftical 
antiquity on the point in queftion, to afcertain, not what 
fhould be followed as an infallible example, but what was 
then acknowledged as the conftitution of the church, there 
are various confiderations which demand our attention, 
I ft, It is probable that in different churches, the govern- 
ment, as well as worfhip and ceremonies, were different. 
Accordingly, we find that fome of the early fathers 
afcribe to the people a greater, and fome of them a 

* See MoPneim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, &c. — It is remarkable 
alio, that moft of the teftimonies produced by King, for the power 
which Independents would give to the people, are taken from 
Cyprian, a father who fiouriflied in the third century. But, fays 
an Independent (Liverpool Theological Repofit. vol. iv. p. 306.), 
when he would invalidate the evidence adduced by King, from 
ecclefiaftical antiquity, for Prefbyterian Synods, rt All the inftances 
" of them, which Lord King produces, are in the third century, 
" and therefore within a time when infant-communion, confe- 
" cration of elements, ufe of chrifm, fign of the crofs, and other 
■* errors in doctrine and difcipline, had entered into, and obtained 
" a footing in the church of Chrift." Now, if this circumftance 
appear to Independents in general to deftroy the force of the 
argument which is brought from the writings of Cyprian for 
Frejhyterian Synods, muft it not equally deftroy the ftrongefl and 
moft numerous arguments of Independents from ecclefiaftical anti- 
quity, which are founded on the fenfe which they attach to cer- 
tain paflages collected from the writings of the fame ancient 
father ? 



Appendix to 



fmaller portion of power. 2dly, As the clergy, when 
afterwards raifed, by the extravagant and imprudent 
liberality of Conftantine, to a dignity and grandeur like 
that of fecular princes, infringed the rights and privileges 
of the people, fo, in the preceding ages r when the 
governors of the church were fo entirely dependent upon 
the caprices of the people, they might experience it to 
be requifite to recede in fome meafure from their legiti- 
mate rights, and grant to the people a degree of power 
to which they were not entitled. Allowing, then, that 
Independents could prove that the fathers granted to the 
people, in many of their churches, a degree of power 
as great as that for which they now contend, it is evident 
that on their own principles, as well as what has now 
been ftated, no argument can be advanced from it for a 
fimilar power to Chriiiian members in the prefent day. 
It mud previomly be proved that the clergy were not 
induced to grant them this power from confiderations, 
perhaps, of a falfe and reprehenfible prudence ; and that, 
if they afted from conviction, their fentiments, upon this 
head, are not to be numbered among their errors, but, 
as they are confirmed by fcripture, are to be reckoned 
among their excellencies, and to be regarded by us as 
patterns for our imitation. 

That thefe paflages moreover produced by King, from 
a few of the fathers, will warrant the conclufion which 
he wifhes to draw from them, is by no means evident. 
In his very frrft authority, from Clemens Romanus 
(p. 116.), he takes it for granted, that the term irtofoz 
denotes the members, when, as will afterwards be 
proved, it is frequently applied only to the rulers of the 
church ; and if it fignify the members, he forgets to mew 
that what they are here affirmed by Clemens to perform, 
might not be performed by them by means of their 
office-bearers. His fecond authority, from Origen, 
reprefents a criminal as appearing before a congrega- 



Letter VIIL 



don, but fays not a word of his being judged by them. 
And even the ftrongeft expreffion adduced from Cyprian 
refpecting the power of the people, feems to be too du- 
bious and obfcure to authorize any certain conclufion as 
to the conftitution of that Chriftian church. " Ad id 
" vera (fays that father, Epift. v. p. 12. edit. Rigalt.) 
41 quod fcripferunt mihi comprefbytei i noftri Donatus et 
" Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, folus refcribere nihil 
" potui ; quando a primordio epifcopatus mei ftatuerim, 
" nihil fine coniilio veftro, et finu confenfti plebis, mea 
" privatim fententia gerere." Now, as it is impoffible 
from the Epiftle to difcover the particular nature of the 
buiinefs of which Cyprian fpeaks, it feems unfair in 
King to build upon the expreflions which he employs 
refpecling it a conclufion fo general, as that, in every 
bufinefs, nothing was done by Cyprian without previoufly 
obtaining the confent of the people. Gulartius and 
Junius, whofe authority unqueitionably as judges of the 
conftitution of the primitive church flands very high, 
inform us, in their Notes on this paffage, that Cyprian 
probably refers to an ordination, and that all that he fays 
is merely that he never did any thing of that kind without 
the advice of his fellow-prefby ters, and the confent of the 
people. " Nempe agebatur de aliqua elcctione quam 
" Cypriano quidam e Prefbyterio fuggefferant, eo quod 
" ecclefia ex perfecutionibus, parte fui Prefbyterii deftitu- 
" ta elfet. Refpondet nihil fe in hac caufa unquam facere 
" voluifle quin et Prefbyterii confilium et plebis confenfum 
" adhiberet.' > But what though the people are here 
declared by Cyprian (and the fuppofition is as natural as 
any which can be adopted) to have a right to be confulted, 
as to their opinion and confent, before a minifter is ordain- 
ed ; and what though it is afferted by this father, that he 
did nothing of this kind without thus confulting them ; 
will that demonftrate, as King very roundly affirms 
(p. 106.), " that all things relating to the government 



132 



Appendix to 



" and policy of the church were performed by the joint 
" confent and adminiftrations of the clergy and people.'' 
The aflertion of King (p. 121.) that Cyprian writes, 
that " whoever was excommunicated, it was by the divine 
" f u ff ra K es °f tne people" (Epiil. xl. ad Plebem), feems 
to be equally rafh and unfounded. Cyprian indeed fpea'ks 
of the feparation of five fchifmatic prefbyters from the 
church of Carthage, who, attaching themfelves to the 
faction of Feliciffimus, had oppofed the miniftry of this 
venerable father, and even queflioned his right to dif- 
charge his function. So far however is Cyprian from 
affirming that thefe prefbyters had been excommunicated 
by the votes of the people, that he tells us exprefsly they 
were excommunicated by none> neither people nor office-bearers > 
but had voluntarily inflicted upon themfelves the punifh- 
ment which they deferved, and expelled themfelves from 
the communion of the church. " E: quidem de Dei 
" providentia (fays he, p>. 58.) nobis hoc nec volen- 
" tibus nec optantibus, imrao et ignofcentibus et tacen- 
" tibus, pcenas quas meruerant rependerunt, ut a nobis 
? c non ejecJi ultro fe ejicerent 9 ipfi in fe pro confcientia fua 
" fententiam darent, fecundum veftra divina fufFragia 
" Conjurati et fcelerati de ecclefia fponte fe pellerent" 
Mention is indeed made of the votes of the people ; and 
it is intimated, that thefe perfons were conjurati et fcelerati) 
or wicked men and confpirators, according to their votes. 
It does not appear however, that thefe votes had been 
given by an affembly of the people met judicially, as 
ecclefia ft ical governors, to confider their conduct. Had 
fuch an affembly been called, and fuch a fentence pro- 
nounced, it is difficult to conceive how thefe men would 
have been permitted to remain in the communion of the 
church, and to officiate as minifters. Such a determina- 
tion, if pronounced by the members together with their 
office-bearers, as thofe who were over thefe prefbyters 
in the Lord, neceffarily involved in it an exclufion at 



Letter VIII. 133 

tit once from their privileges as members, and their 
function as miniflers ; and fince no fuch punifiiment was 
inflicted upon them, though they were declared by thefe 
votes to be wicked and confpirators, it is mod probable 
that the votes were not delivered by the people as aa 
affembly of ecclefiaftical arbiters convened to judge and 
punifh thefe offenders, but as met in a different character, 
and for a different purpofe. But in what character, 
it may be afked, had the people met when they delivered 
thefe votes, and for what purpofe was it requifite that 
they mould vote at all ? We anfvver, that thefe favourers 
of Feliciffimus had endeavoured to alienate the minds of 
his congregation from the miniftry of Cyprian, and 
had prompted them publicly to reject his authority, 
and no longer acknowledge him as a Chriftian bifhop. 
u Hi (fays that father) fomenta olim quibufdam confeffo- 
ribus et hortamenta tribuebant, ne concordarent cum 
spifcopo fuoy nec ecclefiafticam difciplinam cum fide et 
££ quiete juxta prascepta Dominica continerent, ne 
u confeffionis fuae gloriam incorrupta et immaculata 
" converfatione fervarent." And again, " Ac ne pa- 
u rum fuiffet corrupiffe quorumdam confefTorum men- 
" tes, et contra facer 'dotium Del portionem ruptae frater- 
* f nitatis armare <voluijfe." In confequence however of 
the attempts of thefe men to miflead and feduce them, 
it is likely that the people would afTemble in a body, to 
confider whether they would adhere to the miniftry of 
their paftor, or connect themfelves with the friends and 
followers of Feliciffimus. On this occafion a vote would 
be taken, and the deciiion being in favour of Cyprian, they 
neceffarily declared the oppofite party to be conjuratt et 
feeler ati, " wicked men and confpirators.' • Still how- 
ever, in the whole of this proceeding, they did not act 
as the ecclefiaftical judges and overfeers of thefe prefby- 
ters, and much lefs, as King has ventured to affirm, did 
they excommunicate them by their votes. Even after 

M 



*34 



Appendix to 



the determination which was made by the votes of the 
members, when met in a private capacity, they {till 
retained their function as elders ; and consequently no 
argument can be drawn from this pafTage, to Ihew that 
when offenders were judicially expelled from the ancient 
church, it was by the vote of the members as well as of 
the office-bearers. 

Even though it were conceded that the members of 
the church were allowed, for their fatisfa&ion, to be 
prefent at the deliberations of the minifters and office- 
bearers, and were occasionally perhaps admitted to exprefs 
their concurrence, it does not appear that every thing 
was Submitted to their judgment and vote, as well as to 
the judgment and vote of the overfeers, before it was 
finally adopted. On the contrary, it is declared by 
Clemens Romanus, one of the earliefl fathers, in his 
Firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, who had rebelled againfi 
their office-bearers, that the government of the church 
was vefted in the latter. " Let us, my brethren," fays 
he, u look to foldiers who fight under their officers. 
" With what regularity, meeknefs, and fubmiffion, they 
" execute their orders. All are not pretors, nor rulers 
" of thoufands, or of hundreds, fifties, or fmaller com- 
£C panies : but every one, in his own rank, does what is 
** commanded by the king and the rulers. The high 
Li cannot fubfift without the low, nor the low without 
** the high : There is a certain variety, and it proves 
" beneficial. ■ 

" Ye then," adds he, " who have laid the foundation 
u of this infurredlion, return to the obedience of your 
&i prefbyters, and bending the knees of your heart, be 
" inftructed to repentance. Laying afide the haughty 
€< arrogance of your tongues, learn fubjeEtion : for it is 
" better with a good reputation to be efteemed little 
Ci in the flock of Chrift, than appearing more eminent 
** in our own eyes, to be deprived of that hope which 



Letter VIII. 



*35 



" he hath given us*." If every member, however, in 
the church of Chiift, according to the opinion of thi3 
ancient father, was no more to be a ruler than every 
foldier in an army was to be a pretor, or commander of 
thoufands, or hundreds, or fifties, or tens, in his view 
muft it not have been in the higher! degree reprehenfible 
to -grant to the people an equality of power with their 
minifters or office-bearers, the point of prefidency alone 
excepted ? And if he enjoins the whole of the members 
to be fubject to their minifters with the fame meek- 
iff/5 and fuhmijjum which are difcovered by foldier s to 
thofe who are their officers > is it not obvious that in his 
time, or in his church at lead, every meafure muft not 
have been fubmitted to their vote as much as to that of 
the office-bearers ? Here then feems to be one pointed 
and decifive teftimony from a father, whofe antiquity 
and high refpe&ability entitle him unqueftionably to the 
greater! regard, completely contradictory to the afFertionii 
of Independents. In his days undoubtedly (and he lived 
immediately after the apoftles of Chrifl) the people 
cannot have enjoyed the fame authority in ecclefiaftical 
government as their paftors and elders, or his reafoning 
would have been inappofite and inconclufive. Nay, had 
they poffeffed fuch power in all other congregations, 
though refufed it in his, his argument would flill have 
been weak and nugatory ; for it might have been replied 
by the Corinthians, that though the members of his 
church were obliged to be fuhjeft to their fpiritual over- 
feers as foldiers are to their officers, yet the appointment 
of Chrift, and the practice of every other primitive church, 
warranted them to claim an equality of power, in judging 
and voting upon every meafure, with their minifters and 
elders. But as we cannot fuppofe that fuch an argument 

* See Mr. Robertfon's Reply to Mr. E wing's Animadverfions on 
his Attack upon Lay-preaching, p. 21. and 23. 

M 2 



136 



Appendix to 



would have been ufed by Clemens, had he known that 
this univerfally was the conftitution of the church, it 
naturally follows, that, *at that period at leaft, the people 
rauft have been ftrangers to that degree of power which 
Independents contend fhould now be granted to them in 
ecclefiaftical government. 

Jerome alio, who was not long pofterior to Clemens, 
exhibits a testimony no lefs ftrong and explicit again ft 
Independency, in his Remarks upon Titus, chap. f. 
u Antequam (fays he) diaboli inftinctu, (ludia in reli- 
it gione fierent, et diceretur in populo, ego fum Pauli, 
" ego Apollo, ego vero Cephae, communi prefbytero- 
" rum confilio ecclefias gubemabantur," <Jc. ; u e. ** Ee- 
" fore, through the fuggeftion of the devil, factions 
<c arofe in religion, and it was fa id among the people, I 
sc am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the 
ec churches were governed by a common council of pref- 
" byters." Upon which the learned Chamier, in his 
Treatife de (Ecumen. Pontif. lib. x, cap. v*. feci:, xxii. in 
reply to Bellarmine, remarks, " Refpondeo ad primum 
" etiamfi ariftocratia non fit totidem fyllabis nominata* 
u tamen certo fignificatam his verbis communi prefoy- 
i{ terorum confilio ecclefiae gubernabantur," &c. And 
fubjoins, " Bonam autem fuiffe id regiminis formam, inde 
" fequitur, quod ah initio fuiffe dicat (Hieronymus) cum 
4< in ecclefia id fit optimum quod verifiimum, id autem 
" veriflimum quod primum: — Dicit enim (Hieron.) 
u fuiffe ex injlitutionis Dominica veritate." But if, as is 
juftly obferved by Chamier, we are inftru&ed by this 
father, that m the apojlolk times, and in the ages which 
immediately fucceeded that period, the churches were govern- 
ed, agreeably to the "injunction of Chrift himfelf, by a 
council of prefbyters, is rt not obvious that originally the 
people cannot have been admitted to parity of power, in 
every congregation, with their elders and office-bearers I 
Had it univerfally been the practice of the New-Tefla- 



Letter VIIL 137 

ment churches, and of the congregations at large in 
every country which were afterwards formed, to allow 
their members to judge and vote upon every caufe ; nay, 
as the members were more numerous, had it generally 
been known that every Chriftian fociety was more really 
governed by the former than by the latter ; how could 
Jerome err fo egregioufly in a matter of fact, and aflert, 
in oppofition to the knowledge of all, and at the rifk of 
inftant and univerfal contradiction, that, till factions had 
begun to arife in the church, every congregation was 
governed by a council of elders ? It would appear then, 
from this clear and ftriking declaration of one who, 
from antiquity and fuperior information, was eminently 
qualified to judge upon this fubje&, that, in the apoftolic 
times as well as the fubfequent ages, the people were not 
permitted to vote and determine in ecclefiaftical matters, 
but that the churches were adminitiered, as at prefenfe 
among Prefbyterians, by a council of office-bearers. 

To thefe quotations might be added the words of 
Ignatius, an apoftolic father (Epift. ad Trallianos, edit. 
Oxon. p. 66 ), who calls the prefbyters or elders of his 
times, the crvndgiov Oicv> or the fanhedrin or council of 
God : <fi *Ot Js TrgzcfivTigoi 'as evviSgtov ©soy," &c. But 
upon what ground could he diftinguim them by the name 
of the fanhedrin, the common appellation of the Jew- 
iih ecclefiaftical judicial court, if they did not conftitute 
a correfponding court in the Chriftian church ? With 
this, too, might be mentioned the words of Origen, who, 
in his Seventh Homily upon Jofhua, orders " one who 
" liad been thrice admonifhed, and was unwilling to re- 
" pent, to be cut off from the church by its prefidents 
" or elders ; — Tertio admonitum refipifcere nolentem 
*' jubet ab ecclefise corpore defecari, per ecclefise prce- 
" fides." And to this might be fubjoined the declara- 
tion of the authors of the Magdeburgen. Centuriae, a 
work of the higheft credit and authority for its accurate 



j 38 Appendix to 

reprefentations of ecclefiaftical antiquity : " Jus (fay 
u they, Cent. iii. cap. vii. p 15 T.) tradlandi de excorn- 
" raunicandis, aut recipiendis publice lapfis, penes feni- 
M ores ecclefix erat 1. e. " The right of deciding re-. 
" fpefting fuch as were to be excommunicated, or of 
" receiving, upon their repentance, fuch as had fallen 
" from the profefiion of Chriftianity, was vefted in the 
" eiders of the church and, in proof of this, they refer us 
to Tertullian's Apology. They indeed remark (Cent. ii. 
cap. vii. p. 134.)* " Ceterum fi quis probatos autore3 
«' hujus feculi perfpiciat, vidtbit formam gubernationis 
4t propemodum A^scx^r;^ fi mile m fuiffe but, in the 
following words, they fufficiently explain their meaning : 
" Singulos enim ecckfics (fay they) parent habebant 
" pciejlatem verbum Dei pure docendi, facramenta admi- 
ii nillrandi, abfolvendi et excommunicandi hcereticos et 
f 1 fceleratos, et ceremonias ah apoilolis aceeptas exer- 
" cendi, aut etiam pro ratione eedincationis novas con- 
** dendi, miniftros eligendi, vocandi, ordinandi, et juftif- 
* s fimas ob caufas iterum deponendi." From this it is 
evident, that though, in the former fentence, they had 
faid that the government of the Chriftian church, in the 
fecond century, was almott like a democracy, they in- 
tended only that it refembled it in this individual circum- 
itance, that all its congregations had an equality of 
power; and", as Wood obferves, p. 383, " that no par- 
<c ticular church was to have any authoritative and juri- 
*' dical fuperiority over other particular churches, as the 
" Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative fuperioritie 
" in their cathedrall churches, over all particular churches 
" in the diaecefe, and the Papalins for an univerfall 
" fuperioritie and fupremacie in the church of Rome, 
" over all other churches in the world." " Befides," 
as he adds, " it is to be obferved that among other things 
" which they reckon up as parts of the church-govern- 
ment, which they fay was much like democracie, they 



Letter VIII. 139. 

u put in the preaching of the word, and adminiftration 
" of facraments, which themfelves before fay (and no 
" man of found judgment will deny) are ac~t.s proper to 
" the called minifters of Chrift : Whence alfo, it is 
" manifeft that they mean not a democracie properly fo 
" called, which putteth the formall power and exercife 
" of government in the hands of all and every one 
" of the multitude, which the Independent brethren 
" plead for." 

On the whole, even Cyprian, whom Independents have 
fo frequently reprefented as affirming that the government 
of the church was purely popular, ufes exprefiions by no 
means confident with fuch a fuppofition. He tells us 
for inftance, in his Epiftle to Quintus, de Haereticia 
Baptizandis, p. 140. that the perfons who u governed the 
M church of the Lord in the province of Africa and 
" Numidia, at the period to which he refers, were 
" Agrippinus, a man of worthy memory, and his fellow 
" bifhops or minifters. Quod quidem et Agrippinus, 
•* bonas memoriae vir, cum ceteris coepifcopis ejus, qui 
u illo tempore in provincia Africse et Numidiae eccleiiam 
" Domini gubernalant^ ftatuit, et librato confilii commit- 
" nis examine firmavit." That the power of ordination 
alfo, that moil important aft of ecclefiaftical government, 
was intrufted only with the minifters, in the days of this 
father, is no lefs evident. In his Fifty-fecond Epiftle, for 
example, while he fays that Cornelius was chofen to be 
a biihop by the vote of the people, he declares mod 
exprefsly, that he was ordained only by the minifters or 
clergy. " Et fa&us eft (fays he, p. 75.) epifcopus a 
" plurimis collegis noftris qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant 
" qui ad nos literas honorificas, et laudabiles, et teftiijonio 
" fuse praedicationis illuftres de ejus ordinatione miferunt. 
" Factus eft autem Cornelius epifcopus de Dei et Chrifti 
u ejusjudicio, de clericorum pene omnium teftimonio 3 
u de plebis, quae tuns affuit fuffragio ; et de facerdotium 



1 40 Appendix to 

" et bonorum virorum collegio*;" i.e. in fubfiance, 
" He was made a bifhop by many of my colleagues who 
" were then in Rome, according to the judgment of 
" God and Chrift, the teftimony of almofl all the clergy - 
" men (who belonged to that church), the vote of the 
" people who were then prefent, and the college of 
" ancient priefts and worthy men." And he fays of 
Novatian (p. Si.), that " he was made a bifhop by 
" fixteen of his fellow minifters or bifhops." " Nifi fi 
" epifcopus tibi videtur, qui epifcopo in ecclefia a fe- 
" decim coepifcopis facio, adnkeratque extraneus epifco- 
M pus fieri a defertoribus per ambitum nititur." Not 
only, moreover, were they the only perfons who com- 
municated ordination, but they alone determined every 
thing relating, to the conduct and duties of the clergy 
after they had been invefted with their office. Hence 
Cyprian, in his Sixty-fixth Epiftle, p. 126. reprobates one 
Victor, becaufe, in oppofition to the decrees of a council 
of minifters, he had appointed Fauftinus, a prefbyter of 
the church, one of the truftees of his teftament. n Gra- 
" viter commoti fumus ego et college mei qui proefentes 
" aderant, et comprefbyteri noftri qui nobis aflidebant, 
M fratres chariffimi, cum cognoviffemus quod Geminius 

* See alfo Epift. Ixxv. p. 159. " Sed et cxteri quique hseretici, 
u fi fe ab ecclefia Dei fciderint, nihil habere poteftatis aut gratiae 
" pofThnt, quando omnis poteftas et gratia in ecclefia conftituta 
" fit, ubi praefident majores natu, qui et baptizandi et manum 
" imponendi et ordinandi poflident poteftatem i. e. a But the 
" other heretics alio, if they feparate from the church, can have 
" no power or grace, fince all power and grace are placed in the 
" church, where elders prefide, in whom is vetted the power of 
" baptizing, and impofition of hands and ordination.' 1 And it is 
obvious that thefe elders muft have been the minifters of the 
church, and not merely laymen advanced in age, for they are 
faid alfo to baptize as well as ordain, and none we know could 
perform that aft, but fuch as were recognized as office-bearers or 
prefbyters. 



Letter. VIII. 



M Victor, frater nofter de feculo excedens, Geminium 
" Fauftinum prefbyterum tutorem teftamento fuo nomi- 
" naverit, cum jam pridem in concilio epifcoporum Jlatuium 
" fity ne quis de clericis et Dei miniftris tutorem vel 
cl curatorem teftamento fuo conftituat — quando finguli 
" divino facerdotio honorati, et in clerico minifterio 
u conftituti, non nifi altari et facrificiis defervire, et 
M precibus atque orationibus vacare debeant." And 
again, " Quod epifcopi antecelTores noftri, religiofe con- 
" fiderantes, et falubriter providentes, cenfuerunt nc quis 
" frater excedens ad tutelam vel curam clericum nomi- 
" naret ; ac fi quis hoc feciffet, non ofierretur pro eo, 
" nec facrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur." 
But if an afTembly of minifters alone decided in this 
Inftance of clerical duty, and even, as is afTerted in thefe 
paffages, appointed a precife and particular punifhment 
to be inflicted upon any one who difregarded their decree, 
is it not obvious that in all other points which refpe&ed 
the conduct: of the office- bearers of the church, it muft 
have been they alone alfo who were permitted authorita- 
tively to judge and determine. In fhort, we find that 
when a minuter ac"led unworthily of his office, it was 
minifters alone who were authorized to be his judges. 
Thus when Novatian, after his apoftafy, entreated to be 
admitted into the communion of the different churches of 
Africa, the perfons who- decided upon the propriety or 
impropriety of granting his requeft, we are told by 
Cyprian (Epift. lxvii. p. 127.), were a council or 
afTembly of minifters. " Et cum (fays he) ad nos in 
" Africam legatos mififfet, optans ad communicationem 
" noftram admitti, hinc a concilio plurimorum facerdo- 
" turn qui praefentes eramus fententiam retulerit /. e. 
14 And when he had fent deputies to us to Africa, defir- 
u ing to be received into our communion, he carried 
" back, from a council of many minifters who were 
" prefent, this fentence or determination." Thus, too. 



Appendix to 



he informs us, In the fame Epiftle, p. 129. that the 
perfons who judged in the cafe of Marcian, when he 
alfo apoitatized, were the office-bearers alone. " Ex 
" quibus cum Marcianus effe cceperit, ct fe Novatiano 
M conjungens, adverfarius mifericordiae et pietatis exti- 
" terit : fententiam non dicat, fed accipiat, nec fic agat 
4i quafi ipfe judicaverit de coUegio facerdotum, quando ipfe 
" fit ab univerfis facerdotibus judicatus." Thus, like- 
wife, Privatus, an old heretic, was tried and condemned 
by a council confiiling of ninety minillers, which met 
for the purpofe in the Lambefitanian colony ; and was 
alfo denied admiffion into the Chriftian fellowfhip of 
the African churches by a fimilar council, which was 
afterwards convened, to decide upon an application which 
was made by him to that end. " Per Feliclantim 
M autem (fays he, p. 92.) fignificavi tibi, frater veniffe 
" Carthaginem Privatum veterem haereticum, in Lam- 
" befitana colonia, ante multos fere annos, ob multa et 
" gravia deli&a nonaginta epifcoporum fententia con- 
u demnatum, antecefforum etiam noftrorum, quod et 
" veftram confcientiam non latet, Fabiani et Donati 
" literis feverifiime notatum, qui cum caufam fuam apud; 
*' nos in concilio, quod habuimus idibus Maiis, quss 
" proxime fuerunt, agere velle fe diceret, nec admiffus 
" effet, fortunatum iftum fibi pfeudoepifcopum dignum 
" collegio fuo fecit 

* It has indeed been aflerted by King, p. 105. " that the fame 
" mode was observed in the depofition of a bimop as in his elec- 
t£ tion. As a bimcp was elected by the people over whom he 
" was to prefide, and by the neighbouring, bilhops, fo was he de- 
" poled by the fame ; both which things feem to be intimated in 
" that paflage of the forementioned Epiftle (Epift. lxviii.), wherein 
" it is faid, that the people chiefly has power, either to choofe 
" worthy biihops, or to refufe unworthy ones." But upon this 
it may be remarked, that in the pafTage referred to, Cyprian is 
not fpeaking of the degree of authority which the people fhould 



Letter VIII. 



As it was by minifters. alone that minifters were judged 
and condemned, if guilty, fo it was by miniilers alone 
that they were afterwards received, on evidences of their 
repentance, into the communion of the church. This is 
manifeft from what is mentioned by Cyprian (Epift. lii. 
p. 76.) refpe&ing Trophimus, who had feparated from 
the church, but afterwards, upon his penitence, was 
publicly re-admitted. " Nam llcut antecelTores no- 
" ftri (fays he) faspe fecerunt, coliigendis fratribus 
u noftris, chariflimus frater nofter Cornelius neceflitati 

fuccubuk : et quoniam cum Trophimo pars maxima 
" plebis abfcelTerat, redeunte nunc ad ecclefiam Trophi- 
" mo, et fatisfaciente, et poenitentia deprecationis errorem 

have in the dcpofition of bifhops compared with that of the mini- 
(lers of the church, but fimply mewing that it is lawful for them 
to feparate from fuch bifhops. This he demonftrates by various 
commands and examples adduced from the fcriptures ; and then 
fubjoins, " Propter quod plebs obfequens prseceptis Dominicis, et 
" Deum timens, a peccatore prsepofito feparare fe debet, nec fe ad 
" facrilcgi faeerdotis facrincia mifcere ; quando rpfa maxime habeat 
" jpoteftatem vel eligendi dignos facerdotes, vel indignos recu- 
" fandi ;" i. e. in fubflance, " Wherefore the people, obedient to 
" the commandments of the Lord, and fearing God, ought to 
" feparate themfelves from a wicked office-bearer, efpecially as 
" they have the power of choofmg worthy bifhops, or of refufmg 
" unworthy ones." And as the people are here faid to have had the 
power of choofmg a worthy minifter, or refufing an unworthy one, 
and not to have had more power for this purpofe, as King trans- 
lates the words, than the governors of the church, it appears no 
lefs manifeft from other paiTages, that Cyprian cannot be fuppofed 
to aiTert in this palTage, that the people were allowed to fit in 
any court which met to deliberate on the depofition of a bifliop. 
As it is evident that a bifhop, when elec*ted by them, was ordained 
folely by the minifters of the church, fo it is no lefs obvious from 
the inftances which have been mentioned, that though they have 
a power alfo of feparating from an unworthy overfeer, it is in- 
tended to be intimated, that this is only to take place after he 
has been previoufly judged by an alTembly .compofed of the office- 
bearers. 



144 



Appendix to 



M priflinum confitente et fraternitatem, quatn nuper 
" abftraxerat, cum plena humilitate et fatisfa&ione revo- 
M cante, auditae funt ejus preces ; et in ecclefiam Domini 
" non tarn Trophimus, quam maximus fratrum numerus, 
" qui cum Trophimo fuerat admiffus eft : qui omnes 
« regreffuri ad ecclefiam non effent, nifi cum Trophimo 
" comitante veniffent." The perfons who re-admitted 
not merely Trophimus, but a great number of the people 
who had feceded along with him, and now repented of 
their error, were an affembly compofed of the colleagues 
of Cyprian and Cornelius his fell ow-bi (hop. " Traftatu 
" illic cum collegis plurimis habito fufceptus eft Tro- 
" phimus ;" u e. " A deliberation being held there, with 
" many of our colleagues, Trophimus was received." 
And that it was the fame perfons alone who were invefted 
with a power judicially to pardon and punifh the fins 
of tranfgreffors in general in the Chriftian church, feems 
to be no lefs clear from his Epiftle to Jubaianus, p. 145. 
u Nam Petro (fays he) primum Dominus, fuper quern 
u aedificavit ecclefiam, et unde unitatis originem inftituit, 
" et oftendit ; poteftatem iftam dedit, ut id folveretur in 
u ccelis, quod ille folviffet in terris. Et poft refurrec- 
64 tionem quoque ad apoftolos loquitur dicens : Sicut mifit 
" me pater, et ego mitto vos : Hoc cum dixiffet, 
M infpiravit, et ait illis : Accipite Spiritum fan&um : 
" Si cujus remiferitis peccata, remittentur illi: fi cujus 
" tenueritis tenebuntur." That is, " For the Lord 
" gave to Peter, and afterwards to his apoftles, this 
" power, that what they bound on earth mould be bound 
" in heaven, and what they loofed on earth fhould be 
431 loofed in heaven." " Whence," he adds, " we under- 
ii ftand that it is lawful for none but the office-bearers of 
44 the church to baptize, and grant remiflion of fins. 

Unde intelligimus non nifi in ecclefia prdpofit'is> et 
c< in evangelica lege, ac Dominica ordinatione fundatis 
" licere baptizare, et remiffam peccatorum dare," If it 



Letter VIII. 145 

was his opinion, however, that none but the office-bearers, 
or the prapofttl in ecchfta y could bind and loofe in general, 
and grant a declaration of the remiflion of fins at baptifm 
in particular, is it not obvious that it mud have been they 
alone who, in his view, were intruded with the govern- 
ment of the church ? Had every member enjoyed an 
equality of power with the minifteis, to bind and loofe, 
to pardon and punifh offenders in general, can we fuppofe 
that Cyprian would have inferred from thefe words of 
Chrift, that this authority was lawful to none but ¥ the 
" elders, or prapofiti 

Let it not be objected, that, in the following page, 
the church at large is faid by him to poffefs all the power 
of her Spoufe and Lord : " Haec eft una quae tenet et 
" poflidet omnem Sponfi fui et Domini poteuatem.'* 
As it could not be concluded from this, in oppofition to 
innumerable pafTages in his writings, that it was his 
opinion that every member had power to baptize as well 
as the paftor, fo it can no more be concluded from it, 
in oppofition to expreifions no lefs pointed and determi- 
nate, that every member was entitled to be a virtual 
though not a nominal ruler. He as exprefsly fays, that 
it is lawful to none but the minirlers, or pr#po/iti 9 to 
bind or loofe, becaufe it was to them alone that Chriil 
committed this authority when he addrefTed his apofiles 
after his refurrecHon (John xx. 21, 22, 23.), as he 
declares in any paffage, that it is lawful for them alone 
to adminifter the facraments. His meaning, therefore, 
in this fentence muil be, that though the whole power of 
Ghrifi wa« given to the church to be exercifed by her 
minifters, yet it was not to be exercifed by every individual 
of her members in particular. Nor let it be urged, that, 
from different Epiftles, it appears that the people were 
not only allowed to be prefent at public deliberations, 
but even to fpeak and vote. It has been the mind of 
fome very learned and refpeftable Prefbytcrians, that, in 

N 



146 



Appendix to 



extraordinary cafes, laymen were allowed to fit in thefe 
courts and deliver their advice, and exprefs their concur- 
rence. It was not however the members indifcriminately 
who obtained this privilege, according to thefe writers, 
but, while the reft were permitted to be prefent as audi- 
tors, it was the learned and intelligent only, who had 
been invited to the performance of this fpecial duty, 
that were allowed to fit as counfellors in the aflembly. 
" Eorum (fays Junius, Cont. iii. lib. ii. cap. xxv. n. 2.) 
u qui conciliis interfunt, varia effe genera : EfTe audientes 
*' qui in do&rina et ordine ex auditione informantur : 
" effe doctos, qui ad confultationem adhibentur ; elfe 
<c denique epifcopos et prefbyteros, qui decidunt res 
" ferendis fententiis :" *. e. " Of thofe who are prefent in 
" councils, there are various defcriptions of perfons : 
€t Some are hearers, and are inflructed in the do&rine 
* { and order of the church : fome are learned, and are 
u admitted as counfellors ; and fome are bifhops and 
" prefbyters, who, delivering their opinions upon the 
fubje&s which they examine, pronounce the decifions." 
And again (Cont. iv. lib. i. cap. xv. n. 15.)? he fays, 
" Qui line authoritate ecclefise adfunt, eorum alii etiam 
u confultationibus adhiberi pofTunt, ut do&i, praefertim 
<; ecclefiaftici, fed dicere fententiam definitivam non 
u poffunt t, e, " Of thofe who are prefent without the 
" authority cf the church, fome who are learned, and 
** efpecially ecclefiaftics, may be admitted to the con- 
t; fultations, but they cannot pronounce a definitive 
4< fentence." Whether this reprefentation however be 
correct or not, it feems plain that even admitting that 
the people, in fome inilances, might be allowed to fpeak, 
it could be only as advifers ; and even granting that 
fometimes they were permitted to vote, it could be only 
to fhew their concurrence, or fimply as an exprefiion of 
their fentiments, for, after all, the power of decifion 
appears ftill to have belonged to the office-bearers alone. 



Letter VIII. 



147 



Cyprian mentions (Epiii. lv. p. 96.) two different in* 
fiances, in which when the ^crp^e feed cppofcd the 
reftoration of fome who had formerly apoftatized, bat 
afterwards exhibited evidences of repentance, to the 
communion of the church, he had himfelf received them. 
" Unus (fays he) atque alius, obtinente piebe, et contra- 
" dicente, mea tamen facilitate fufcepti,pejores extiterunt, 
" quam prius fuerant, nec fidem pcsnitentias fervare 
€ * potuerunt, quia nec cum vera poenitentia venerant 
u e. u One and another, who had been admitted by my 
" indulgence, though the people oppofed it, turned out 
M worfe than they were before, becaufe they had come 
" again into the church without true repentance." This, 
however, would have been impofiible, had the people, 
who were unqueftionably more numerous than Cyprian 
and his fellow-minifters, poffefled an equality of ecclefiafti- 
cal power with him and his brethren in deciding upon 
this and other matters. Befides, had this been the cafe, 
how could he affirm, as we fomerly faw, that the perfons 
who governed the Numidian churches were the minifters, 
fince if the people were allowed any higher power than 
that of occasionally delivering their opinion and expreffing 
their concurrence, either by voting or otherwife, it was 
more really they who adminiftered thefe churches than 
the minifters and office-bearers ? And how, efpecially 
upon the contrary fuppofition, could he reprefent it as 
lawful for none but the pmpofiti in ecclefia, or the 
minifters of the church, to bind and loofe, or remit and 
punifh fin, fince if every member had a power of final 
judicial determination no lefs than the office-bearers, they 
would exercife this authority as well as their minifters, 
nay, on account of their number, would much more 
really have poffeffed it ? Whatever occafional liberties 
then, for the fake of peace, might be granted to the 
people, to fpeak and vote in the congregations which 
were placed under the infpection of Cyprian, it is plain 
N2 



148 



Appendix, fcfc. 



that it muft have been only to cxprefs their acquiescence 
in the decider.: of *hf£: oince-bearers, and by no mean3 
implied that degree of power in ecclefiaftical government 
for which Independents contend. He too, as well as 
Clemens, Ignatius, Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen, 
affirms, as we have feen, that it is the office-bearers alone 
who govern the church ; and at the fame time, by a 
great- variety of expreffions, clearly intimates that every 
meafure was not then Subjected to the votes of the mem- 
bers, and, by their decifion, adopted or fet afide. 

From thefe, then, and other teftimonies, it is contended 
that the conftitution of the primitive church, after the 
days of the apoflles, refembled the Prefbyterian and not 
the Independent fcheme. It is again requefted however, 
that it may be carefully remarked that no argument is 
deduced from it for the truth of Prefbytery. Many errors 
exifted, even in the earlieft times, in the primitive church, 
and it is only as far as their principles and practice are 
fanctioned by fcripture that we are warranted either ta 
admit or to imitate them. 



LETTER IX. 

SIR, 

If the government of the church is to be committed 
only to a few, it comes next to be confidered who are 
thefe few ? Are they the miniilers alone, who feed the 
flock with knowledge and underftanding, or have we 
reafon to believe that there are other elders aflbciated 
with them, who are limply to rule and not to preach ? 
The laft is the opinion of Prelbyterians ; and though it 
is in general denied by molt of the prefent clafles of In- 
dependents, was admitted by many of their moft refpec- 
table predeceffors. Dr. Watts affirms (p. 125. of hh 



Letter IX. 149 

Treatife on the Foundation of the Chriftian Church), 
" that if it happens that there is but one minifter or 
" prefbyter in a church, or if the minifters are young 
" men of fmall experience in the world, it is afual and 
" proper that fome of the eldeft, graveft, and wifeft 
11 members be deputed by the church to join with and 
" aflift the minifters in the care and management of this 
" affair (the admiffion and exclufion of members). " 
Mr. Thomas Goodwin, in his Catechifm on Church- 
government, p. 19. exprefsly afferts, that there is a clafs 
of elders who are to rule and not to teach. Mr. John 
Cotton alfo, in his Way of the Churches of Chrift in 
New England, chap. ii. feci:, ii. p. 13.-35. contends 
that fuch elders are a divine inilitution, and represents it 
as very generally obtaining in thefe churches. The 
Weftminifler Independents, moreover, in their Reafons 
again!!: the Third Proportion concerning Prefbyterial 
Government, p. 4c. declare, " that the fcripture fays 
" much of two forts of elders, teaching and ruling, and in 
" fome places, fo phine, as if of purpoje to diftinguifh 
" them and (p. 3.) " that the whole Reformed 
fl churches had thefe different elders.* 5 And it cannot 
be denied that never was there a more ftrenuous or en- 
lightened advocate for this order of elders than the great 
Dr. Owen, who may juftly be confidered as the moft 
learned of Independents *. Venerable, however, as fuch 
names are, I hcpe it will appear that it refts not merely 
on their opinion and authority, but on the dictates of 
reafon, and the explicit teftimony of the word of God. 

That the government of the church, then, mould be 
veiled not merely in the elders who teach, but in a clafs 
of elders who rule and do not teach, conjoined with 
the former, appears to be evident from the following 
reafons. 

* See his book on the Gofpel-church. 

N 3 



jjo Letter IX. 

In the firft place, It has been obferved by fome of 
your brethren, that it feems to be taught in fcripture, that 
there mud be a plurality of elders in every chureh ; and 
from the maintenance which is rcquiiite for every teaching 
elder, it appears obvious that they cannot all be elders 
who teach. That there muft be a plurality of elders in 
every church, they tell us, is evident, among other paf- 
fages, from A&sxiv. 23. where we are told, that " Paul 
f 1 and Barnabas ordained elders in every church The 
particular number of thefe elders is not fpecified, but it 
appears fit that it fhould be determined by the number 
of members. At any rate it is certain, that it can 
never properly be lefs thau three; for if there were only 
two, and if they mould happen to differ upon any point 
of difcipline, or any cafe of government, no decifion 
could be made. But if, in every church however fmali, 
there can never be lets than three elders, it feems obvious 
that all of them cannot be elders who teach. In your 
own fociety, as well as your fifter-focieties, the teaching 
elders receive a maintenance, which enables them to 
give themfelves wholly to their particular function, with- 
out intermingling in the bufinefs of the world. This 
indeed is their juft prerogative. " Do ye not know,'* 
fays Paul (1 Cor. ix. 13. 14.), " that they which mi- 
" nifter about holy things, live of the things of the 
" temple ? and they which wait at the altar, are partakers 
" with the altar ? Even To hath tie Lord ordained, that 
" they which preach the gofpel, mould live of the 
" gofpel." And though minifters, in extraordinary in- 
ilances, like the Apoftle Paul, may give up with this 
right, nothing appears plainer than that it is not to be 
\lone in ordinary cafes. Reafon and experience indeed 

* See your brother Mr. Ballentine's Obfervations, p. 90. — 95. 
and the Review of thefe Obfervations in the Miflionary Magazine^ 
which quotes his fentiments with the moll decided approbation. 



Letter IX, 



unite in proving-, that nothing is better fitted to fecure a 
refpectable miniftry, than to grant them fuch a main- 
tenance as will enable them to devote themfelves entirely to 
perfonal improvement and public duty. But to afford at 
lead to three teaching elders fuch a maintenance, the funds 
of fcarcely any church are adequate. If there muft be a 
plurality of elders in every church however fmall, and if 
that plurality, in every cafe of government, cannot be lefs- 
than three, it appears naturally to follow that they cannot 
all be teachers, for all cannot be maintained. There 
muft of confequence in every church, not only be an 
elder who teaches as well as rules, and who, as he gives 
himfelf wholly to the duties of his profeflion, is entitled 
to maintenance from that fociety, but elders alfo, whofe 
maintenance, if required, fince they are allowed to at- 
tach themfelves likewife to fecular employments, is not fo 
great, and more confident with the funds and abilities of 
the church. 

Secondly, The extent of that infpe&ion and fuper- 
intendence which are required from the rulers of the 
church over the members, feems to fuggeft the necelfity 
of a clafs of elders who are not to teach, but to have 
this peculiar province affigned them. 

Not only is it the duty of trie elders of the church to 
make known, by preaching, their privileges and duties ta 
the Chriftian members, but a clafs of office-bearers is re- 
quired for government and infpe&ion, if poffible, (till more 
varied and extenfive. It is they alone, we have feen, 
who are to admit and exclude members, and attend to 
all thofe laborious inveftigations which are often con- 
nected with the performance at leaft of the laft of thefe 
acts. It is they alone who are to judge in matters of 
government, and to determine on every point of difficulty 
and importance, according to the rules before explained ; 
as well as to regulate, according to Dr. Owen (p. 290.), 
the external concerns of the church of Chrift, and ap- 



152 Letter IX. 

point feafdns for extraordinary duties. Befides this, the 
Dodlor remarks (p. 292.) that they are bound, 

" In the ift place, To watch diligently over the ways, 
" walking, and converfation of all the members of the 
" church ; to fee that it be blamelefs, without offence, 
" ufeful, exemplary, and in all things anfwering the 
11 holinefs of the commands of Chrift, the honour of the 
6C g°fp e l» an ^ profeflion which in the world they make 
" thereof. And upon the obfervation which they fo 
" make, in the watch wherein they are placed, to in- 
" flrucl:, admonifh, charge, exhort, encourage, comfort, 
" as they fee caufe. And this they are to attend unto 
" with courage and diligence. 

" They are, 2dly, To watch againft all rifings or 
6i appearances of fuch differences and divifions on the 
r< account of things eccleiiaftical or civil, as unto their 
4s names, rights, and proprieties in the world, that are 
" contrary unto that love which the Lord Jefus requireth 
" in a peculiar and eminent manner to be found amongft 
" his difciples. — The due obfervanee of this law of love 
c< in itfelf and all its fruits, with the prevention, removal, 
" or condemnation of all that is contrary unto h> is that 
" in which the rule of the church doth principally confift. 
" And confidering the weaknefs, the pafllons, the tempta- 

trons of men, the mutual provocations and exafpera- 
<{ tions that are apt to fall out even among the belt, 
" the influence that earthly occafions are apt to have 
" upon their minds, the frowardnefs fometimes of men's 
" natural tempers ; the attendance unto this one duty or 
" part of rule, requires the utmoft diligence of them 
" that are called unto it. And it is merely either the 
u want of acquaintance with the nature of that law and 
" its fruits, which the Lord Chrift requires among his 
" difciples, or an undervaluation of the worth and glory 
" of it in the church ; or inadvertency unto the caufes 
" of its decays, and of breaches mads ia it, or ignorance 



Letter IX. 153 

" of the care and duties that are neceffary to its preferva- 
" tion, that induce men to judge that the work of an 
" efpecial office is not required hereunto. 

" In the 3d place, Their duty is to warn all the 
" members of the church of their efpecial church-duties, 
" that they may not be found negligent or wanting in 
" them. There are efpecial duties required refpe&ively 
" of all church-members, according unto the diftinct 
" talents, whether in things fpiritiial or temporal, which 
" they have received. Some are rich, and fome are 
" poor ; fome are old, and fome are young ; fome in 
" peace, fome in trouble ; fome have received more 
" fpiritual gifts than others, and have more opportunities- 
f< for their exercife. It belongs unto the rule of the 
" church, that all be admonifhed, inftru&ed, and exhorted 
" to attend unto their refpe&ive duties ; not only publicly 
" in the preaching of the word, but perfonally as occafion 
" doth require, according to the obfervation which thofe 
" in rule do make of their forwardnefs or remifthefs in 
" them. 

" 4thly, They are to watch againft the beginning of 
" any church-diforders, fuch as thofe that infefted the 
" church of Corinth, or any of the- like fort ; with 
u remiffnefs as unto the affemblies of the church, and 
" the duties of them, which fome are fubjec~l unto, as 
" the apoftle intimates, He"b. x. 25. On the conftancy 
H and diligence of the elders in this part of their work 
" and duty, the very being and order of the church 
" do greatly depend. The want hereof hath opened a 
" door unto all the troubles, divifions, and fchifms, that 
" in ail ages have invaded and perplexed the churches of 
44 Chrift from within themfelves. And from thence alfo 
" have decays in faith, love, and order, infenfibly pre* 
" vailed in many to the difhonour of Chrift, and the 
" danger of their own fouls. Firft, one grows remifs 
^ m attending unto the affemblies of the church, a-nd 



J 54 



Letter IX. 



" then another ; firft to one degree, then to another, 
" until the whole lump be infected. A diligent watch 
" over thefe things, as'to the beginnings of them in all 
" the members of the church, will either heal and re- 
" cover them that offend, or it will warn others, and 
" keep the church from being either corrupted or defiled : 
" Heb. xiii. 12. 

" In the 5th place, It belongs unto them alfo to vifit 
(C the fick, efpecially fuch as whofe inward or outward 
" conditions do expofe them unto more than ordinary 
" trials in their ficknefs ; that is, the poor, the afflicted, 
u the tempted in any kind. This in general is a moral 
u duty, a work of mercy ; but it is moreover, a peculiar 
" church-duty, by virtue of inftitution. And one end 
" of the inftitution of churches, is that the difciples of 
u Chrift may have all that fpiritual and temporal relief 
" which is needful for them, and ufeful to them in their 
" troubles and diftreffes. And if this duty were diligently 
" attended to by the officers of the church, it would add 
ft much unto the glory and beauty of our order, and be 
" an abiding referve with relief in the minds of them 
*' whofe outward condition expofeth them to ftraits and 
" forrows in fuch a feafon. 

" 6thly, It belongs to them and their office, to advife 
" and give direction unto the deacons of the church, as 
" unto the making provifion and diftribution of the 
" chanty of the church for the relief of the poor. The 
" office of the deacons is principally executive, as we Ihall 
" fee afterwards. Inquifition into the ftate of the poor, 
" with all their circumftances, with the warning of all 
" the members of the church unto* liberality for their 
" fupply, belongs to the elders. 

" In the 7th place, When the ftate of the church is 
" fuch, through fufFering, perfecution, and afHi&ion, 
" that the poor be multiplied among them, fo as that 
" the church itfelf is not able to provide for their relief 



Letter IX. 155 

44 in a due manner, if any fupply be fent unto them 
" from the love and bounty of other churches, it is to 
" be depofited with thefe elders, and difpofed according 
" to their advice, and with that of the teachers of the 
" church : Acts xi. 30. 

" And 8thly, It is of great importance to teaching 
" elders to be acquainted with their flock, that they 
" may be directed in their labours. He who makes it 
" not his bufinefs to know the ftate of the church which 
" he minifters unto in the word and doctrine, as to 
" their knowledge, their judgment and underftanding, 
4i their temptations and occafions, and applies not him- 
" felf in his miniftry to fearch out what is neceflary and 
" ufeful unto their edification ; he fights uncertainly in 
" his whole work, as a man beating the air. But 
" whereas their obligation to attend unto the word and 
46 prayer, confines them much unto a retirement for 
" the greateft part of their time, they cannot by them- 
46 felves obtain that acquaintance with the whole flock, 
" but that others may greatly affift therein, from their 
46 daily infpe&ion, converfe, and observation." After 
which the Doctor fubjoins various other duties ; and then 
adds (p. 300), " It is a vain apprehenfion to fuppofe 
" that one or two teaching officers in a church, who 
4t are obliged to give themfelves unto the word and 
46 prayer, to labour with all their might in the word and 
" doctrine, to preach in and out of feafon ; that is, at 
" all times, on all opportunities as they are able, to con- 
" vince gainfayers by word and writing, pleading for 
46 the truth ; to afiift and guide the confciences of all, 
" under their temptations and defertions, with fundry 
" other duties, in part fpoken to before, fhould be able 
44 to take care of, and attend with diligence unto all 
" thefe things that do evidently belong unto the rule of 
" the church." 



156 



Letter IX. 



Since fiich then are the duties incumbent on the rulers, 
and fince, if the church be extenfive or greatly fcattered, 
as is frequently the cafe, it is impoffible for one, or two, or 
even three teaching elders, though the congregation could 
fupport them, faithfully and fatisfa&orily to difcharge 
thefe duties, it feems neceffary that there mould be 
another clafs of elders to attend to them. In your 
focieties, if 1 miftake not, thefe duties are in general 
committed to the deacons, who affift the paftor in the 
fuperintendence of the flock. Such fuperintendence, 
however, is no proper part of the office of a deacon 
confidered as f itch, and belongs only to thofe who are 
appointed as rulers to watch over the church. And 
though this infpe&ion and fuperintendence may in fome 
meafure be performed likewife by thofe who are members, 
as they may communicate inftruction alfo in a manner 
fuited to their particular Rations, yet it is plain, that, 
like the duty of preaching, they belong properly, in all 
this extent, to thofe only who are elders and overfeers of 
the flock. But if fuch an overfight and fuperintendence 
be the duty of the elders, and if it exceed the abilities 
of thofe elders who teach, and are enjoined to give them- 
felves wholly to their particular calling, does it not follow 
that there muft be an order of elders dtjlinft Trom them, 
who are to aflifl them in governing and watching over 
the flock ? 

In the third place, The tendency which in every age, 
even by the confefllon of Independents, has been dis- 
covered in pallors to aflame to themfelves an immoderate 
and unreasonable power over the church of Chrift, feems 
to point out the neceffity of a clafs of elders different from 
them, who may check thefe ufurpations, and reflrain 
their ambition. 

That the miniflers of religion, however amiable and 
venerable their character, are fubjec"l to the frailties and 
imperfections of humanity, and that a defire of undue 



Letter IX. 



and extravagant authority has too often been one of thefe 
imperfections, is a truth which will fcarcely be denied. 
At the diftance of a very few years only from the death 
of the apoftles did this pernicious principle begin to 
operate, and it gradually produced thofe afTumptions of 
Epifcopacy, and that tyranny of Popery, which fo long 
enflaved the Chriftian world. And to what caufe are we 
to afcribe the introduction of thefe evils ? If we attend 
both to the nature of the thing, and to the representations 
of the fathers, who witnefTed and deplored them, they were 
to be attributed in a great meafure to the difcontinuance 
of that feparate clafs of rulers who were originally infti- 
tuted in the Chriftian church, and whofe Superintendence 
reftrained the ambition of the pallors. Accordingly, the 
writer of the Commentaries commonly attributed to 
Ambrofe, in his explication of i Tim. v. i. fays, 
<6 Wherefore both the Synagogue, and afterwards the 
" church had elders, without whofe counfel nothing 
" was done in the church ; which order by what negli- 
u gence it grew into difufe I know not, u clefs perhaps 
u by the floth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, 
'* while they alone wifh to appear fomething." " Unde 
" et fynagoga et poftea ecclefia feniores habuit, fine 
" quorum confilio nihil gerebatur in ecclefia : quod qua 
" negligentia obfoleverit nefcio : nifi forte doctorum 
<c defidia, aut magis fuperbia, dum foli volunt aliquid 
" videri." And we know that Calvin, from a conviction 
of thefe truths, and from a perfuafion of the neceflity of 
fuch an order of elders to prevent thofe exceffes of tyranny 
which were pradiifed by the Romifh clergy at the period 
of the Preformation, A. D. 1542*, revived thefe rulers 

* Though this order of elders however was more general!/ 
reftored by this iiluftrious reformer at the period referred to, vet 
it does not appear that it was entirely aboliihed even- in the dark- 
eft times of error and corruption which preceded this era. Bucer 
at leaft informs us, in his book entitled, Scripta duo Adverfar'a 

o 



Letter IX. 



in the Chrlftian church. Were fuch an order again to 
be difcontinued, and the government again intruded to 
the minifters alone, is it not evident that the door would 
be opened for fimilar tyranny over the heritage of God ? 
The institution therefore of a feparate order to reftrain 
thefe encroachments, and maintain the rights and liberties 
of the people, feems abfoluteiy requifite for the welfare 
of the church. 

In anfwer to this let it not be remarked, that the 
power of the clergy is equally bounded by the fcheme of 
Independency, which allows them not to eftablifh any of 
their meafures without the previous judgment and con- 
fent of the members. It is plain that the clergy could 
more readily influence a congregation at large, many of 
whom are unable to judge, and will be difpofed to be 
partial to the opinion of their paftors, than a few of 
the wifeft and molt enlightened of the people, who are 
no lefs qualified to judge perhaps than the minifters them- 
f elves. Befides, it has already been attempted to be 
proved, that fuch a power of judgment and confent is 
not granted to the members, and confequently that fuch 

Latomi, &c. p. 77. that the Bohemian churches, who, " alone 
" almoft," to ule his cxprcflive words, " preferved in the -world 
" the purity of the do£trine and the vigour of the difcipline of Chriit," 
had this >rder amongft them. " Ilia certe ratio optima, quam 
" obiervant fratres Picardi, qui foli prope in orbe, cum puritate 
" dottrinse, vigorem etiam difcipl' ^ Chrifti apud ie retinuerunt, 
<( quam laudem ut iis tribuamus, et Dominum, qui fic in illis 
w operatur, celebremus, res ipfa cogit, etiamfi fratres illi a prse- 
" poftere dotlis nonnullis contemnantur. Ratio vero quam in 
" hac re obfervant, hzc eft. Praeter miniftros verbi et facramen- 
<{ torum habent certum collegium virorum prudentia et gravitate 
£4 fpiritus prsecellentium, qui munus obeunt monendiac corrigendi 
*' fratres peccantes, componendi diflidentes, et in caufis eorum 
'« judicandi. De hujufmodi fenioribus lcripfit et divus Ambrofius in 
Epiii. i. ad. Tim, cap. v. Unde et fynagoga," &c. 



Letter IX. 



*59 



a prefervative from the afTumptions of the clergy is not 
to be admitted into the church of Chrift. 

Fourthly, There are many to be found in the church 
who, though not fitted to be teaching elders, are emi- 
nently qualified to be rulers. Moft men have it not in 
their power to attain that learning, and that facility of 
expreffion, which are requifite for the former, while 
many of them have acquired that experience and fagacity 
which may fit them for the ufeful difcharge of the latter. 
Shall the church then, becaufe they are not qualified to 
be numbered among her inftrudtors, be totally deprived 
of the benefit of their endowments ? No, certainly. 
Does not Paul, when demonftrating that there are to be 
various offices in the church of Chrift (Rom. xii. i Cor. 
xii. &V.), urge, in proof of it, that he has beftowed 
upon its members a variety of gifts which qualify them 
for thefe offices ? But fince Jefus has beftowed upon 
many of the members of his church gifts for ruling, 
while he has not imparted to them gifts for teaching, if 
there be no office afligned to them for the exercife of 
thefe gifts, how can this reafoning be conclufive ? I 
maintain, therefore, that fince Jefus has communicated 
to many members in his church gifts for ruling, and for 
that alone, and fince we are taught to believe that where 
he imparts gifts, there is a correfponding office, there 
mud in his church be a clafs of elders who are to rule 
and not to teach, as there is a clafs of elders who are 
appointed to rule as well as to teach. 

Is it faid, that if this reafoning eftablifh any thing, it 
eftablifhes too much, for as, according to Independents, 
all the members are fitted to judge, fhould not they all 
be conftituted judges and rulers ? It is replied, that to 
make fuch an inference is in truth to beg the queftion, 
or to take for granted the thing to be proved. It was 
before evinced, that the whole of the members of any con- 
gregation are very far from being qualified for fuch a 
O 2 



i6o 



Letter IX. 



truft, and confequently, even according to this principle, 
ought not to be judges. It is certain, befides, that every- 
one who is qualified to perform the office of a deacon is 
not entitled, even among Independents, from his poffelT- 
ing thefe gifts, to exercife that office, but only fo many 
as have been regularly authorized and appointed by the 
church, though it would be very furprifing if the other 
duties of a pallor prevented him from fulfilling the office 
of a deacon, that none of the members mould be nominated 
to affiil him. As then it appears that there is to be a diver- 
fity of oHices in the church of Jefus, correfponding to 
the diverfified gifts of its members, and as there are 
many of the members who, though eminently qualified 
for ruling, are not fitted for teaching, it appears necef- 
farily to follow that there mil ft be a clafs of elders in the 
church who are to rule and not to teach. As it has, more- 
over, been proved that every member has not thefe gifts, 
of confequence every member cannot have that authority. 
And as the mere pofleflion of gifts does not warrant, 
even upon the principles of Independents, all who have 
them to execute the office of a deacon and other func- 
tions, but that only fo many as the general interefts of 
the body require, and as have been appointed to the re- 
gular difcharge of them, are authorized to fulfil them, 
fo it is no lefs manifeft that all who are diftinguifhed for 
gifts of ruling are not on this account to be chofen to 
rule, but only fo many as are necefiary for the infpection 
and government of the church. 

It is furprifing, in mort, that the commiffion of the 
government to a few of the members who do not teach, 

o 

but merely rule together with the pallors, fhould be fo 
difpleafing both to Epifcopalians and Independents, 
fince fomething fimilar exifts among themfelves. Not 
only are laymen who do . not teach, but barely rule, to 
be found among the different bodies of Proteflants on 
the continent, and in the high fituation even of cardinals 



Letter IX. 



161 



and infpe&ors of the different orders of the clergy in the 
Romiih chiirch, but it is certain that in thofe churches 
where Epifcopacy is eflablifhed, many rule who are not 
teachers. Biihop Burnet, in his Funeral Sermon on 
Archbifhop Tiilotfon, exprefsly affirms, that a bifhop as 
fuch, though appointed to rule, has no care of fouls > 
by preaching, devolved upon him. " In his fun&ion," 
fays he, M he was a conitant preacher : For though he 
" had no care of fouls upon him, yet few that had, labour- 
" ed fo painfully as he did " And Dr. South, in his 
Sermon preached at the Confecration of the Biihop of 
Rocheftet, vol. i. p 209. explicitly afferts, that " a teach- 
" ing talent is not abfolutely ncceffary in a bifhop, Bor 
" is of the vital conJHtution of his function. If he have 
" it, it is not to be refufed ; but if he have it not, it is 
" not much to be defired." And befides their bifhops, 
we know that they have chancellors, and commiflioners, 
and church- wardens, and other officers, who, though 
lay me J!, judge and decide in ecclefiafkieal matters. Dr. 
Whitaker moreover, though an Epifcopalian, acknow- 
ledges that there mould be two claffes of elders in the 
church ; and Dr Whitby, as will be fhewn, exprefsly 
avows himfelf of the very fame fentiments. See alfo 
Biihop Jewel's Defence of his Apology, part i. p. 41. 
where he admits that laymen mould judge in the church ; 
and fee, too 1 Willet in his Controverfue, Controv. ill. 
QuslL iv. p. 41. where he attempts to prove, by a va- 
riety of arguments, that laymen mould be allowed to 
be eccleliaftical judges. With regard to Independents, 
it is certain that though the multitude be permitted to 
judge and vote with the pallors, it is a few only of the 
leading and molt active of the members who determine 
every bufinefs. The only difference then between Prei- 
byterians and them feems to be this, that while the 
government is committed by the former to a clafs of 
elders who do not teach, together with the pallors who 

03 



l62 



Letter IX. 



rule as well as teach, it is intruded nominally by the 
latter to all the members together with the paftors, but 
is exercifed in reality only by a few of them who influence 
the reft. Now, is it not better to give not only the 
power but the name of rulers to thefe few along with 
the paflor, than, like Independents, to delude the people 
with the mere name, while the power is necefTarily limit- 
ed to a few ? On the whole, as the government mud 
really, from the nature of the thing, be placed in the 
hands of a few, and as the leading men in a congregation, 
though perhaps forward and loquacious, are often leaft 
fitted to direct their decifions, is not the fyftem of Pref- 
bytery more enlightened and wife ? By this means, they 
are fecured from the evils which too often refult from 
the confidence or intrigues of any noify declaimer ; and 
a court of ecclefiaftical judges is obtained, not only more 
enlightened and judicious than thofe who frequently 
poffefs the afcendency in popular afTemblies, but who, 
from their knowledge and experience, being more upon 
an equality with each other, are lefs likely to be expofed 
to a fuperior influence, and to unite at once that ability 
and that independence which are abfolutely necefTary to 
the enjoyment of a wife and perfect government. 



LETTER X. 

SIR, 

Satisfactory as may be the confiderations which are 
fuggefted by reafon for the necefiity and utility of the 
inftitution of a feparate order of elders, it is on revelation 
alone that we reft its authority. There are three paf- 
fages in particular which appear to afTert its truth. 

In the firft place, Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8. Here it is necef- 
fary to remark, that, in the preceding verfes, the apoftle 



Letter X. 163 

reprefents the church of Chrift under the metaphor of a 
body, and affirms that as in the natural body there is a 
variety of members poffeffed of different and feparate 
powers, fo in this fpiritual body there is a diverfity of 
offices, for the exercife of which a diverfity of gifts is 
requifite. " As we have many members in one body," 
fays he, " and all members have not the fame office, fo we 
" being many, are one body in Chrift, and every one 
" members one of another." After this, he declares it 
was the duty of thofe to whom gifts had been imparted 
for the exercife of particular offices faithfully to employ 
them, without vanity or arrogance (compare ver. 3.), in 
their different functions : " Having then gifts, differing 
" according to the grace that is given to us, whether 
" prophecy, let us prophefy according to the proportion 
" of faith ; or miniftry, let us wait on our miniftering ; 
" or he that teacheth, on teaching ; or he that exhort- 
" eth, on exhortation : he that giveth, let him do it with 
" fimplicity ; he that ruleth, with diligence ; he that 
« fneweth mercy, with cheerfulnefs." Now, fince in 
the body of Chrift there is a diverfity of offices as linking 
as that of the offices of the different members of the 
natural body ; and fince, as is no lefs evident from the 
comparifon, the united members of the body of Chrift 
can no more exercife any office of that body which does not 
belong to them united, than every member of the human 
body united can difcharge the office of any particular mem- 
ber of that body ; and fince, as is equally plain, there are 
fame of the offices of the body of Chrift which can be ex- 
ercifed by perfons who cannot difcharge any fuperior 
function, as in the human body there are fome offices 
which can be performed only by the eye or the ear, 
while thefe members cannot difcharge any other function ; 
is it not obvious that if it can be proved that ruling is 
numbered among thefe offices in the former body, it will 
not only follow that it cannot be exercifed by ally as fee- 



164 



Better X. 



ing or hearing cannot be performed by all the members 
of the latter body, but that it can be performed by 
fome who cannot teach, as feeing and hearing can be 
exercifed by members of the latter body which have no 
other function ? 

But that ruling is here mentioned as one of the offices 
in the church of Chrift appears to be undeniable. Thefe 
offices, as we are informed by Mr. Goodwin and Dr e 
Guyie, are firft: divided into prophecy * and miniftry : 
and are again fubdivided into thofe of the exhorter and 
teacher, comprehended under the former ; and thofe of 
the perfon who gives, of him who rules, and of him who 
mews mercy, included under the latter. Now, as Paul, 
when fpeaking of the offices of the church, after his 
general arrangement, fpeciries particularly him that rukih^ 
is it not evident that the office of the elder who rules is 
a divine inftitution ? As he introduces it under the head 
of miniftry, which is confeffedly different in its other 
branches (that of the deacon who gave, and that of him 
who ilieweth mercy) from the office-bearers who were 
appointed, under the head of prophecy, to teach and 
exhort, is it not obvious that this office muft be com- 
pletely di (tin cl: from that of teaching, and, like the office 
of the deacon, which too is included under miniftry, 
may be exercifed by thofe who have neither talents nor 
authority to preach the gofpel ? In fhort, as the gifts 
for ruling, which Paul here enjoins the governors of the 
church to exercife with diligence, by the very compari- 
fon before mentioned, are no more given to all the mem- 
bers of the church, than the power of feeing or hearing 

* Underftanding by prophecy, as Dr. Guyfe has proved (fee his 
Note on the place, and his Second Note on 1 Cor. xiv. 1. — 5.), not 
the interpretation of fcripture by immediate infpiration, or the 
foretelling of future events, hut the ordinary preaching of the 
minifters of ChriH:, as his two witnefTes are faid to froghefy during 
the reign of Antichrifh 



Letter X. 



is Imparted to all the members of our bodies, is it not 
manifeft that this office of ruling cannot belong to all the 
^members indifcriminately \ And, in fine, as mere gifts 
for preachings or giving, do not authorize as many as 
have them to exercife the offices of a pajlor or a deacon, 
but chofe only are^warranted to do fo who have been fet 
apart to thefe offices, fo is it not evident that when the 
duty of ruling is fpoken of, every one is not here called 
to the performance of this duty, but as many only as 
have been confidered to be requifite to take the overfight 
of the church, and have been in veiled with the office of 
rulers tor this end? Thus, then, it would appear that 
there is an office of rule in the church of Chrift different 
from that of the elder who teaches, and that this office 
is not committed to all indifcriminately, but to as many 
only of thofe who are qualified for it, and are neceffary 
for this end, as have been regularly fet apart to it by the 
elders of the church. 

In anfwer to this it has been faid, that the apoftle is 
not here fpeaking of offices but of gifts, and confequently 
that it cannot be inferred from what is here faid, that 
there is an office of rule diftinct from that of the elder 
who teaches. But in reply to this it may be obferved^, 
that by introducing a comparifon between the natural 
body and the church of Chrift (ver. 4/5.), and aiTert- 
ing that as in the former " there were many members, 
" all of which had not the fame office fo in the latter 
there was a variety no lefs remarkable, he jjlainly points 
out a diverfity not only of gifts but of offices in the 
latter, as there was a diverfity not only of gifts but of 
offices in the former. Though therefore it were admit- 
ted that the apoftle is fpeaking only of the exercife of 
the gifts of him who ruleth, agreeably to what he fays 
in ver. 6. he evidently fuppofes that there is an office for 
ruling in which thefe gifts may be exercifed, and an 
office diftinct from that of the teacher, as when he fpeaks 



i66 



Letter X. 



of each of the members of our bodies as exercifing thofe 
gifts which are peculiar to its office, he afcribes to it an 
office feparate from that of any of the other members. 
As the apoftle moreover, when he mentions him who 
teacheth, and him who giveth, fpeaks not merely of gifted 
brethren as exercifing the endowments which are requifite 
for thefe offices, but of fuch only as were ordained to thefe 
particular functions, is it not manifeft that when he 
mentions likewife him who ruleth, he muft intend not 
merely gifted brethren as governing the church, but 
thofe only who are invefted with that particular office ? 
Now, . if mere qualifications for being a paftor or a deacon 
will not authorize thofe who pofTefs them to exercife 
thefe gifts as pajlors or deacons, till they are fet apart to 
thefe offices, it appears equally obvious that though the 
apoftle were allowed here to fpeak of thofe who ruled as 
barely exercifing their gifts for ruling with diligence, he 
cannot mean that any were to exercife thefe gifts for that 
end, but fuch as had been ordained to the office of eccle- 
fiaftical rulers. Inveftiture therefore with the office of 
ruling is as much requifite to the exercife of rule, as in- 
veftiture with that of a paftor is to teaching, and invefti- 
ture with that of a deacon is to giving. And as this 
office is effentially different from the former, and requires 
qualifications totally diftintJ, we are warranted to affirm 
that there muft be an office of ruling in the church of 
Chrift completely different from that of teaching ; an office, 
for which as all have neither gifts nor authority, that 
cannot be exercifed by all, and which, as many have en- 
dowments for it who are totally unfit for being public 
teachers, may be exercifed by many who cannot be 
teachers of the church of God. 

Still it is objected, that though we hear, in this paf- 
fage, of him who ruleth, it may be only the perfon's own 
family that is intended. But to this it is anfwered, that 
the various duties here mentioned by the apoftle as per- 



Letter X. 



167 



formed by the different perfons of whom he fpeaks, are 
reprefented by him as performed to the church only, 
ilnd confequently that it muft be a rule which relates 
more immediately to the affairs of this fociety which is 
defigned. Is it contended with Doddridge and other In- 
dependents, that it is a rule or prefidency (as they fay 
that the word means), which refers merely to the diftri- 
bution of the charitable collections of the church ? This 
would make him who ruleth, the fame with the deacon, 
or him who giveth, which, in a divifion of the different 
offices of the church, as is here ftated, would be ex- 
tremely inaccurate. Is it faid, moreover, that the ex- 
horter, who is the fame with the teacher, is mentioned 
apparently as a different office-bearer from him ; and 
him that fheweth mercy, who is the fame with the dea- 
con, or him who giveth, as a different office-bearer from 
him ; and why may not the name of him who ruleth be 
here fuppofed to be given to the deacon, or him who 
giveth, in reference to his prefidency over the church- 
ftock, though it makes him who ruleth, and him who 
giveth, the fame office-bearer ? But even though it were 
allowed that he who teaches, and he who exhorts, or, 
as fome render it, who reproves and comforts, were the 
fame office-bearer, and that he who giveth, and he who 
meweth mercy, were the fame minifter, it is plain that 
different branches of their office are referred to. He 
who teaches men the doctrines and duties of Chriftianity 
performs a very different part from him who reproves, 
or comforts, or exhorts ; and he who was appointed 
by the church to lhew mercy in the various ways in 
which it was manifefted in the primitive times to Chrif- 
tian brethren, who were ftrangers and in diftrefs, certainly 
performed a very different duty from him who merely gave. 
If prefiding here, however, means prefiding over the 
church-ftock, and if he who ruleth be the fame with him 
who giveth, it is employing two expreffions, in an enurnera- 



i68 



Letter X. 



tion of things which are different, for the very fame part or 
the office of the deacon. Befides, it has been the opinion of 
many moft refpecl.able men, both among Prefbyterians and 
Independents, that he who taught, and he w r ho exhorted, 
were not perfons who fulfilled only different parts of the 
fame office, but perfons who difcharged offices entirely 
djflincl. The former, according to them, was the cate- 
chift or teacher, who prepared young perfons for perfonal 
admiffion to the privilege of memberfhip, as well as the 
catechumens who had become converts from idolatry, 
or who publicly explained the truths of religion without 
difpenfing privileges ; the latter was the dated paftor or 
biftiop *. And with regard to him who giveth, and 
him who flieweth mercy, it is w T ell known that it was 
the opinion of Beza f and Goodwin J, that they were 
cither feparate offices, or parts of the fame office, fo 
diftincl: from each other, as that many, who could dif- 
charge the laft, could not perform the firft. By him 
who giveth, they underftood the deacon, and by thofe 
who fhewed mercy, thofe pious perfons whofe employ- 
ment it was, in the primitive times, to perform offices 
of mercy to Chriftians who were ftrangers, and were 
poor or afflicted. Of thefe office-bearers we have fome 
account in i Tim. v. 9, 10. where, as Calvin remarks, 
though aged widows are particularly mentioned as in- 
truded with this office, the word n? 9 " any one" is ufed, 
and which, being either mafculine or feminine, mews 
that it might be communicated to men, perhaps ad- 

* See Calvin's Inftitutes ; Eeza upon the place ; Owen on the 
Nature of a Gcfpel-church, chap, vi.; Goodwin's Church-catechiirn, 
p. 16. where he exprefsly declares, " that the apoftle makes them 
u dijlinft officers, and that they have their feveral works to attend 
•* to, the paftor not being to attend to the doctrine, nor the 
M teacher to exhortation." 

f Confult him upon the place. 

\ See his Catechifm, p. 27. 



/ 



Letter X. 169 

vanced in age, as well as to women. Since then it 
appears that all the other phrafes employed in this enu- 
meration denote either feparate offices , or feparate parts of 
the fame office, " he who ruleth" muft fignify alfo fome 
office, or fome part of an office, completely different 
from what is fuggefted by any of the other phrafes. And 
fince it cannot be explained as fignifying him who pre- 
fides over the church-jlock> or as referring to any part of the 
deacon's office, without making it the fame with him 
who giveth, or him who fheweth mercy, it appears na- 
turally to follow that the rule or prefidency here men- 
tioned, muft be a rule or prefidency entirely different, 
and a rule which is the fame with that of the elder who - 
governs, though he does not teach. 

M'Knight indeed afferts, that by him who ruleth 
feems to be defigned the perfon who prefided in his 
turn in the meetings of the church, and appointed thofe 
who were to fpeak for their edification, who, from the 
extraordinary gift of difcerning fpirits with which he 
was endowed, detected and prevented heretical teachers 
from miniftering among them, and whofe province it 
was, along with his fellow-prefidents, to decide in thofe 
cafes of civil controverfy which happened among the 
faints. See 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2. But there appears to be 
no authority from fcripture for fuch an office ; and if 
this were admitted, then, even according to M'Knight, 
as we are informed in 1 Tim. v. 17. that there were 
fome elders who prefided or ruled well, and did not 
preach, it would elevate laymen above the paftor and 
teacher, and give them a power to prefcribe to them in 
fome cafes their particular work. Befides, though it 
were granted that there was fuch an office, there feems 
to be no proper reafon for limiting their power to the 
direction of the worfhip and fervices of the church, and 
the decilion fimply of civil controversies. There is a 
rule or prefidency in the church much more im- 

P 



Ho 



Letter X. 



portant than what is mentioned by this expofitor, a 
rule which extends to the difpenfation of the privileges 
and the inflict-. m of the panifhments of this fpiritual 
fociety. Would it not then be very extraordinary, if, 
in a profefTed enumeration of the ordinary offices which 
are inftituted in it *, and which ipecifies the deacon 
and teacher, no notice mould be taken of this very in- 
terefting function, by whomfoever it is to be exercifed f 
Befides, as this interpretation i'uppofes that a few of the 
laymen, conjoined with the pallors, decided not only in 
civil controverfies, but fixed the labours of the minifters 
of the church, and even exercifed the power of denying 
to heretical or apoflate teachers, without confulting the 
brethren, the liberty of fpeaking or preaching in their 
affemblies, is not this conceding that a few of the mem- 
bers, together with the paftors, in many important cafes, 
may govern the church ? And, if they may exclude 
the teachers from the rights of teachers, why not alfo ex- 
clude the members, if they (hew themfelves unworthy of 
the privileges of members ; and confequently will not 
the fame inftitution be authorized by this interpretation 
for which Prefbyterians contend, when they fay that a 
few of the members who do not teach, together with the 
paftors, are authorized as elders to govern the church ? 
Or is it faid, that we may reject in part the interpreta- 
tion of M'Knight, and maintain that the word denote* 
merely prefidency, without fuppofing that the perfon 
who preflded had any other power over thofe among 
whom he prefided than that of a chairman or moderator, 
who fimply ftates the vote, preferves order, and deter- 
mines when the number on two fides is equal ? It is 

* That the apoftie here is fpeaking only of ordinary offices 
feems evident, among other things, notwithftanding the unfubftan- 
ttated aiTertion of M'Knight to the contrary, from this confidera- 
tion, that there is not one of them, as far as is here dated, for 
the difcharge of which one extraordinary qualification was required. 



Letter X. 171 

replied, that the term, when it fignifies to prefide, as 
far as we know, uniformly denotes a much higher au- 
thority — an authority which entitles him to govern and 
direct, thofe over whom he is placed, and not merely to 
lit as a moderator while they confult and determine. It 
is employed, for in fiance, in fcripture, as was before ch- 
ferved, 1 Tim. TTT7 4, 5. 1 2. to denote the authority 
connected with a Chiiflian's prefiding over or ruling his 
family; and in Tit. iii. 8. 14. to fignify the command 
which he mould exercife over him/elf fo as to excel in 
good works. It is ufed too, as was before remarked, 
by Thucydides, to fignify the government of a fate-~- 
Ti'^ous-Yixu rev $npov 9 M he governed the people by Ari- 
ftotle, in his Polit. Kb. iii. cap. x. according to Con- 
flantinus in his Lexicon, in the fame fcnfe — tt^s^^s^v 
uvtm, " they governed them ; by Xenophon, in his 
CEconomics, in a fimilar acceptation — 7r^ccr^ ctetvrov 
7fair^og 9 " who prefidefl over, or governed thy country 
by Herodotus, for the fuperintendent of the armory 
or arfenal — rns 'oTrhoGnwig irgMsyxuf) u having been fct 
over the armory ; by the fame writer, for the magiilrates 
or governors of cities — K^ms-ans rvv vcXim ; by Plato, in 
his Epiftles (Epift. vii.), in the fame fenfe — piyoiMs 
7r£oi<5-e*s 7rote&g, " the prefect or governor of a great 
" city and by Demofthenes pro Corona, in a fimilar 
acceptation — Koti peyifav $q 7r^ayf^ocr^v 7rgo?oi$, M fet even 
" over the greatefl matters, or having the fupreme 
" power." Now, fince the word, as far as we know, 
fignifies not merely to prefide over an affembly, who, as 
rulers, are veiled with an equality of power with the pre- 
fident hirnfelf (the point of preferving order alone ex- 
cepted), and can even make determinations which can 
authoritatively bind him no lefs than themfelves, how- 
can it be fuppofed that, in the prefent paffage, it is to 
be taken in this acceptation, and that a number of men 
would be faid to prefide as governors over the church, 
P 2 



Letter X. 



agreeably to this ilrong expreffion, when all that is 
meant is only that they fat as chairmen in their meetings, 
and preferved order, while, in every other point, they 
were more completely fubjecl to the power of the mem- 
bers than the members were to that of the prefidents ? 
But if, as we are here taught, there be a ciafs of men 
who are to rule in the church, not merely as chairmen 
and moderators, but as governors, in whom alone, to- 
gether with the pallors, the adminiftration is veiled; 
and if thefe men, as is here afTerted, be diftinguifhed 
from the pallor, the teacher, the deacon, and thofe who, 
in the primitive times, fhewed mercy ; are we not warrant- 
ed to affirm that there mufl be a clafs of elders who rule 
and do not teach ? 

The fecond of thofe paffages urged by Pr<rfoyterians in 
fupport of this pofition, is one to which I have already 
folicited your attention, namely, I Cor. xii. 28. That 
the apoftle, in this place, is enumerating not merely the 
extraordinary, as M 4 Knight affirms, but alfo the ordinary 
offices in the church, mull be evident from the comparifon 
inHItuted between the offices of the church and the offices 
of all the different members of the body. In fpeaking 
of the latter, the feeble as well as the Rrong, ver. 22. 
and the lefs honourable as well as the more honourable 
members are fpecified, ver. 2f. Now, if Paul, when 
reprobating the Corinthian office-bearers for all afpiring 
at the higheft functions, tells them that it was as unfeemly 
as if all the members of the natural body mould feek to 
be an eye, or an ear, or a fenfe of fmelling (ver. 17. 
and if, when fpeaking of the variety which, for the wifeft 
purpofes, was appointed in the body, he mentions not 
only the Wronger and more honourable, but the feebler 
and lefs honourable members ; would it not be unaccount- 
able, if, in detailing the correfponding diverfity of offices 
which is fitly inftituted in the church of Chrift, he fpe- 
ciiied thofe only which are extraordinary and more exah- 



Letter X. 173 

ed ? But if the ordinary as well as extraordinary mini- 
fters be mentioned, have we reafon to believe that among 
i/the former, are included the elder who rules and does 
not teach ? 

That fuch was the opinion of the venerable Chryfoftom, 
one of the moft difting'iifhed of the Chriftian fathers, 
appears to be undeniable. He underftands by " the 
" helpers," or xvti*i$us* 9 " illi qui pauperes fufciperent," 
i. e. " thofe who took care of the poor ;" and by " the 
" governments," or wfiipwus* " illi qui praeeffent, et 
" curam gererent, et res fpirituales adminiftrarent," 
u e. " thofe who prefided over, and managed and go- 
u verned the fpiritua! concerns of the church." And in 
this opinion he is followed not only by modern Prefbyte- 
rians, but by Owen, as well as many of the moft refpeft- 
able of the Independents. And that this interpretation 
is founded in truth, feems evident from an impartial re- 
view of the paflage. That the apoftle, in enumerating 
the different offices which exift in the church, fpecilies 
not merely fome which are extraordinary, but others 
which are ordinary % we have already proved ; and that in 
afcertaining which of thefe offices are ordinary, and which 
of them are extraordinary, we are to be guided by their 
nature, and by the common reprefentations of them in 
fciipture, appears to be no lefs evident. Judging then 
by thefe principles, it would feem that while among the 
extraordinary offices, are to be claffed thofe of apoftles, 
and prophets, and workers of miracles, among the ordi- 
nary, are to be comprehended teachers, and helps, and 
governments. Thefe are not only, in their own nature, 
ftaoding offices, which are continually requifite for the 
edification of the church, and require no miraculous 
gifts for their performance, but are always pointed out in 
fcripture as ordinary offices. It has indeed been afferted 



* See his Thirty-firft Homily. 

P3 



174 Letter X. 

by M'Knight, that by the teacher here, we are to un- 
derhand an extraordinary minifter, becaufe in i Cor. 
xiv. 6. the doctrine or teaching there mentioned, means 
doctrine or teaching by infpiration. But though it were 
granted (and nothing more is there mentioned) that an 
apojlle, or other extraordinary mimfttr, fometimes taught by 
infpiration, it is certain that the term teacher, in the 
New Teftament, commonly fignifies an ordinary minifter, 
who had no fupernatural powers *• It has been contend- 
ed moreover, by that expofitor, that by helps, or help- 
ers, appear to be meant inspired brethren, who, fpeak- 
ing occasionally to the edification of the church, aflifted 
the apoftles and elders in their miniftrations. But while 
it may juftly be queftioned whether any but the mini- 
fters of the church pofTefTed thefe miraculous gifts for 
teaching, and while we never hear of fuch perfons being 
helps to the apoftles, we know that deacons, at the 
period of their inftitution, were exprefsly appointed to 
aflift them in their work, and to free them from the 
labour of ferving tables. It has alfo been maintained, 
that by governments are meant, perfons endowed with 
miraculous gifts, who prefided in the meetings, and 
directed the affairs of the primitive church. But we 
hear, in the New Teftament, of no fuch infpired officers 
who were prefidents of the church. In the account 
which is given (Ads xv.) of the confultation at Jerufa- 
lem, upon the reference from Antioch, it was not 
merely the prefident, but the rulers at large, who fpoke 
and advifed ; and if, as is evident from the principles 
both of Independents and Prefbyterians, any of the 
other members may fet afide any propofal fuggefted by 
the prefident, and, if he is able to fupport it by fuperior 
reafoning, may introduce and carry any meafure of his 

* It is "plain, too, that as teachers are here difHnguiilied from 
apoftles, and prophets, and othei infpired inilructors, they can 
here denote only ordinary minifters. 



Letter X. 175 

own, I cannot fee how the former are entitled to the 
name of governments, or governors, rather than the lat ter. 
Since by governments, or governors, all who were en- 
titled to adminifler the church are intended, and fince, 
Vaas far at leaft as is mentioned in the New Teftament, it 
was not neceffary for this purpofe that thofe who were 
appointed to it mould be furnifhed with any extraordi- 
nary gifts, it appears plain that the governments, who 
are here mentioned, were ordinary officers. And as 
they are dated as different from teachers and helps, we 
are warranted to infer that they are a clafs of elders dif- 
tinft from the pallors, and teachers, and deacons, and are 
merely to rule in the church of Chrift. 

Here then is another teftimony to the divine authority 
of the elder who rules and does not preach. Govern- 
ment in itfelf, as well as according to the uniform re- 
presentation of it delivered in the New Teftament, is an 
office for which no miraculous powers are requifite, and 
an office which is always neceffary in the church. It is 
therefore an ordinary and Handing office. It is an 
office which is here faid to be given to iome only, and, 
therefore, in no form ought to be committed to all. It 
is an office which is vefted neither upon the principles of 
Independents nor Prefbyterians in the prefident alone, 
for every member of the court has as much, if not more, 
a voice and power than the prefident himfelf. And it is 
an office, moreover, completely diftincl from that of the 
teacher, and is reprefented as excrcifed by fome who are 
entitled to difcharge no higher functiou. In other 
words, it is an office which may be difcharged by elders 
who do not teach. 

Is it faid in anfwer to this, that the apoftle fpeaks 
here of ftifts, not of offices ? It is replied, that as there 
is an office in the natural body correfponding to the gifts 
beftowed by the Creator upon any of the members, fo, 
though it were granted that the apoftle fpeaks here only 



i?6 



Letter X. 



of gifts for government, it would follow from the com- 
parifon introduced in the context, that there muft be 
an office in the former for the exercife of thefe gifts. 
And, in fhort, as thefe gifts are beftowed upon many 
who are deftitute of talents for being teachers or pallors, 
though admirably adapted for the office of governors, it 
appears no lefs obvious, even from this very objection, 
that there muft be a clafs of elders diftin£t from the 
paftors. 

Is it urged, that helps, by whom we underftand dea- 
cons, are placed before governments, which would not 
be the cafe, if by governments were intended ruling 
elders, fince the latter are unqueftionably fuperior to the 
former I It is anfwered, that the facred writers fre- 
quently pay little attention to this mode of expreffing 
rank and dignity. Nay, this fame apoftlc, in the ioth 
verfe of this very chapter, though he mentions prophets, 
in the paiTage before us, as the fecond of the offices in 
the Chriftian church, places the gift of prophecy after 
the gifts of healing and other inferior gifts ; and though, 
in this paiTage too, he ftates the gifts of miracles before 
gifts of healing, in the 9th verfe he introduces the latter 
before the former. It feems obvious then, that fince 
this very apoftle, in this very chapter, mentions repeat- 
edly offices which are inferior before offices which are 
confefTedly greatly fuperior, no argument can be adduced 
from the pofition of helps, or the office of deacons* before 
governments or governors, againft explaining the latter 
of ruling elders, becaufe the former are inferior to the 
latter in dignity. 



[ *77 ] 



LETTER XL 

SIR, 

The laft, however, and moll decifive argument for this 
ifrder of elders is contained in i Tim. v. 17. ; " a text," 
according to the opinion of Dr. Owen, " of uncontroul- 
" able evidence, if it had any thing but prejudice and 
" intereft to contend with. On the firft propofal of 
" this text," fays he, p. 246. " that the elders who rule 
" well are worthy of double honour, efpe daily thofe who 
u labour in the word and do&r'iney a rational man who is 
" unprejudiced, who never heard of the controverfy 
u about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an apprehenfion 
* 5 that there are two forts of elders, fome that labour in 
" the word and doctrine, and fome who do not fo do, 
* £ The truth is, it was intereft and prejudice that firft 
" caufed fome learned men to flrain their wits to find 
" out evafions from the evidence of this teftimony : being 
* f fo found, fome others, of meaner abilities, have been 
" entangled by them. For there is not one new argu- 
" ment advanced in this caufe" (and no new arguments 
have been offered by Independents fince his day), " not 
" one exception given in unto the fenfe of the place 
" which we plead for, but what has long fince been 
" coined by Papifts and Prelatifts, and managed with 
" better colours than fome now are able to lay on them 
" who pretend to the fame judgment." 

Nor is the language of Dr. Whitaker, though a zeal- 
ous Epifcopalian, lefs ftrong and decided with regard 
to this paffage. " By thefe words," fays he, in his Pra> 
lection. apud Didioclav. p. 681. ex Sheervodio, " the 
" apoftle evidently diftinguifhes between the bifhops and 
" the infpe6tors of the church. If all who rule well be 
" worthy of double honour, especially they who labour 
" in the word and doftrine, it is plain that there were 



, 7 8 



Letter XI. 



" fome who did not fo labour : for if all had been of this 
" defcription, the meaning would have been abfurd ; 
" but the word efpecially points out a difference. If I 
" mould fay that all they who ftudy well at the univer- 
" fity are worthy of double honour, efpecially they who 
" labour in the Jludy of theology, I muft either mean that 
u all do not apply themfelves to the Jludy of theology, or 
" / fhould /peak nonfenfe. Wherefore I confcfs that to be 
" the moil genuine fenfe by which paftors and teachers 
" are diftinguifhed from thofe who only governed, 
" Rom. xii. 8. ; of whom we read in Ambrofe upon 
s * i Tim. v. 17." Ulis verbis diferte diftinguit apoftolus 
inter epifcopos et infpe&ores ecclefise. Si omnes duplici 
honore fint digni qui bene praefunt, maxime ii qui labo- 
rant in fermone et doctrina, perfpicuum eft fuiffe aliquos 
qni non laborarunr. Nam li omnes fuifTent tales, fenfus 
fuiiTet abfurd us, fed petXisot, ponit difcrimen. Si dicerem 
omnes academici qui bene Undent, funt duplici honore dig- 
ni, maxime ii qui Jahorant in ftudio theologise, vel innuo 
non omnes incumbere ftudio theologise, vel infulfe loquor. 
Quamobrem fateor ilium effe fenfum maxime genuinum 
quo paftores et dodlores difcernuntur ab aliis qui fclum 
gubernabant, Rom. xii, 8. de quibus in Ambrofio legimus 
I Tim. v. 17. And fays Dr. Whitby on this pafTage, 
though no lefs rigid an Epifcopalian, " The elders of the 
€t Jews were of two forts: ift, Such as governed in the 
u fynagogue ; and 2d3y, Such as miniftered in reading and 
" expounding their fcriptures, And thefe the apoftle 

u here declares to be the moft honourable, and worthy of 
" the chiefeft reward. Accordingly the apoftle, reckoning 
u up the offices God had appointed in the church, places 
u teachers before governments : 1 Cor, xii." 

Here, then, even according to the conceflions of fome 
of the enemies of Prefbytery, two claffes of elders are 
mentioned, one who rule well, and, on account of it 5 



Letter XI. 1*9 

are worthy of double honour, and one who not only 
rule, but labour alfo in the word and doctrine, and are 
more efpecially worthy of double honour. 

To this interpretation however a number of objections 
haVe been urged by Epifcopalians, and repeated by Inde- 
pendents, but all of them intended to fupport explications 
too forced and abfttufe to prefent themfelves readily to a 
candid reader. Some, for inftance, with the famous 
Jofeph Mede, have contended that by thofe who rule 
well, are intended fubordinate civil magiftrates. But we 
know that there was not one Chriftian magiftrate at that 
period in the church, nor for fome hundred years after 
this Epiftle was written ; and were Chriftian magiftrates 
the rulers here referred to, it would be a necefTary con- 
fequence, that as thofe who labour in the word and doc- 
trine are reprefented in this verfe as more worthy than 
the flrft of double maintenance or honour, they ought to 
have a more liberal appointment than the civil magi- 
ftrates. Others have maintained, that by thofe who 
ruled well, were to be underftood fuperannuated bifhops, 
who, though they might affift in government, could not 
teach ; and that by thofe who laboured in the word 
and doctrine, are meant the younger minifters, who were 
fit for the vigorous difcharge of this office *. But how 
could thefe elders rule well, who were fo fuperannuated 
that they could not preach? And if the younger mini- 
fters received greater honour and maintenance than thofe 
who had become old in the caufe of Chrift, and had 
fpent their ftrength and years in his fervice, would not 
this indeed be a moll unfuitable return for their zeal and 
labours ? How then, according to the obfervation of Solo- 
mon, could their gray hairs be to them a crown of glory, 
though found in the ways of righteoufnefs ? 



* See Bifaop King's Sermon oa Canticles viii. 



Letter XI. 



Others have alleged*, that by the elders who rule 
well, are fignified the fated pallors of the church, and 
by thofe who laboured in the w T ord and doctrine, evange- 
lifts who itinerated for the diffufion of the gofpel. But 
it is a fact which is inconteftable, that in i ThefT. v. 12. 
m $ n*mwT*si " thofe who laboured in that church, and 
" were over them in the Lord," was the name given to 
their ftated paftors ; and confequently that interpretation 
w r hich would rcprefent thofe who laboured in the word 
and doftfine as evangelifts, and thofe who ruled well as 
jlaied pajlors, muft be totally groundlefs. 

Some, in fhort, with Sutclive de Prefbyterio, p. 75. 
a firm, that the word here rendered " efpecialiy" ( ( «#>u$-c*), 
mould be tranflated " much and that the apoftle, in- 
ftead of naming two clafTes of elders, only afligns the 
reafon w T hy thofe whom he had mentioned as ruling well 
mould receive double honour : " Let the elders who rule 
" well," fay they, his words mould be rendered, " be 
" counted worthy of double honour, they labouring," 
i. e. becaufe they labour " much in the word and doc- 
" trine." But upon this it is obferved, that it would be 
for preaching alone and not for ruling, according to this 
interpretation, that the honour would be claimed ; and 
can we fuppofe for a moment, that no honour is to be 
the reward of ruling aright ? Befides, as the learned 
Calderwood, in his Altare Damafcenum, p. 919. has 
remarked, had this been the meaning of the apoftle, he 
would not have faid ftctXi?& \>< x.07rtuyr^ 9 but 'ot paXtsot, 
xo7Fi6iVT6$ 9 or (Aahtfoi xo7n&>vTi$ ; u e. €t Let the elders be 
" counted worthy of double honour who rule well, la- 
" bouring greatly, or they labouring greatly in the 
" word and doctrine," and not as the prefent arrange- 
ment of the Greek words fuggefts, " Let the elders be 
" counted worthy of double honour who rule well, 



* Sec Bilfon cn Church-government, p. 135. 



Letter XI. 



efi efpectally they who labour in word and doctrine." 
Befides, in every other Gmilar paftage where the word 
(here tranflated efpectally) occurs, it uniformly means a 
d^ftin&ion of two perfons or things. Thus, in this very 
chapter, ver. 8. " If any man provide not for his own, 
" and efpectally for thofe of his own houfe, £sV." where, 
though the neglect of one's own is condemned, the 
neglect of one's neareft relatives is evidently held 
out as much more reprehenfible. Thus too, chap. iv. 
ver. io. " Who is the Saviour," or, as the word mould 
here be rendered, " the Preferver of all men, efpectally of 
" them who believe," where two claffes of perfons are 
obvioufiy diftinguimed. Thus likewife, 2 Tim. iv. 13. 
" Bring the books, efpectally the parchments ;" and 
Gal. vi. 10. " Let us do good to all men, but efpectally 
" unto the houfehold of faith." See alfo Philip, iv. 22. 
Titus i. 10. 2 Peter it. 9, 10. and A&s xx. 39. which 
are all the parallel inflances, as far as I have discovered, 
where it occurs in the New Teftament, and in all of 
which it marks a diftic61ion between two clafFes of per- 
fons or things. Now, when we fee the apoille, in the 
pafTages before us, after fpeaking of elders who rule well, 
infert this very word between thefe and elders who are 
engaged in preaching, is it not plain that he intended to 
fugged by it here, as in all thefe other inflances, two 
clafFes of perfons, fome who ruled well and did not teach, 
and others who taught as well as ruled ? 

In anfwer to this, let it not be objected that the par- 
ticle " but," is not in this pafTage fubjoined to pahi?*, 
" efpeciaily," as it ought to have been, had the latter 
word, as we contend, fignified efpectally* It is not to be 
found in a number of the pafTages quoted above, where, 
however, the word here tranflated " efpeciaily," can 
admit only of that meaning. Thus, in 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
" Who is the Preferver of all men, efpectally of them who 
" believe" — not " but efpectally^ potest not ^#Ai<r<* 



l82 



Letter XI. 



h wirm. And thus too, in Titus i. to. n For there are 
w many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, efpecially 
" they of the circumcifion" — not " but efpecially^ 
'ci, not pctXiroi ds 'ci zk 7re£iTCf.tv$. Accordingly the old 
Hebrew tranflators have rendered pxXtrx, in i Tim. v. 17. 
which, in our verfion, is tranflated " efpecially," by a 
word which fignifies, in connection with K07rimTis> ** emi- 
" nently they who labour in word and doctrine ;" the 
Syriac verfion by another, which fignifies " chiefly or 
fl principally they" who do fo ; and the Old Latin Ver- 
fion or Vulgate, by maxime, a term of the fame import. 
Hence it would feem that the apoftle, in the latter 
claufe, is not pointing out merely a reafon why the 
elders who ruled well mould receive double honour, but 
clearly diftinguifhing, by the term pccXirx, " efpecially," 
two claffes of eiders, one who ruled and did not teach, 
and one who taught as well as ruled. 

Others, with Bilfon, in his Treatife on Church- 
government, p. 133, and Tilenus, in his Parsenef. cap. xi. 
admit that a diflinftion is here ftated, but contend that it 
is not between elders in different offices, but between dif- 
ferent elders in the fame office. All elders, they tell us, 
teach and rule, but there are fome who are diftinguifhed 
for their extraordinary labours in the caufe of Chrift, and 
it is to them they apprehend that the apoftle refers, 
when he fpeaks of thofe who " labour" (x4?r*#m$) in 
word and doctrine. The meaning of Paul therefore, 
according to them, is, " Let the elders who rule well, 
" and w T ho teach, be counted worthy of double honour, 
u efpecially they who are noted for their extraordinary 
* exertions in the word and doctrine." This interpre- 
tation, too, has been generally adopted by the Independ- 
ents, as it is by your brother Mr. Ballentine, in his late 
publication, p. 88. It is probable how ? ever, that had 
this been the meaning of the apoftle, he would have 
faid, " Let the elders who rule and preach well be count- 



Letter XL 



" ed worthy of double honour, efpecially they who h- 
" hour in the word and doctrine." But inftead of this, 
we fee that he has fimply faid, " Let the elders who rule 
" be counted worthy of double honour, efpecially 
they who labour in the word and doctrine." 3Befide~s, 
though the word denotes greater labour than arfMft 

and labour which, in one view, may be called extraordinary, 
this is nothing more than what is reprefented in fcripture 
as the duty of every one who is a teaching elder. It is 
employed by Paul, i Cor. iii. 8. to fignify the common 
duty of every teaching elder: " Now he that planteth," 
fays he, U and he that watereth, are both one ; and every 
" man (hall receive his own reward, according to his 
" labour, xckov." And, fays he, i TheiT. v. 12, 13. 
iC Know them which labour among you, and are over 
" you in the Lord," where it is reprefented as the can- 
mon duty and work of all the teachers. Tints, too, it is 
expreffive of the common duty and work of all the Old- 
Teftament teachers. John iv. 38. "I fent you to reap 
" that whereon you bellowed no labour: others have 
" laboured, and ye have entered into their labours"— 
where the verb and noun which are ufed by Paul occur 
no lefs than thrice. And, in fhort, we know that when 
the apoftle intends to exprefs unufual exertion, he employs 
another word befides xoTnsta. Thus, when he fpeaks of 
the extraordinary exertions of Mary and Per fis to pro- 
mote the gofpel in their private ftations, he expreffes it 
not merely by K07Ftetu, but by TrohXa ixoiriGto-Gtv, " they 
u laboured much :" Rom. xvi. 6. 13. And when he 
mentions his own extraordinary exertions, 1 Cor. xv. 10. 
he fays, that "he laboured (7rt£t<r<roTZ£ov) more abundantly" 
And efpecially when he defigns to convey this idea in 
the moft forcible manner, he couples this term with a 
word which fignifies not merely, like xottos, labour con- 
nected with care and anxiety, but agreeably to the 



Letter XI. 



obfervation of the very able Zanchius on i Theff. iu 9.* 
which combines befides this, the idea of completely fa- 
tiguing and overpowering the perfon. Thus, in 2 Cor, 
xi. 27. in enumerating his hardfhips, he fpeaks of him- 
felf as having been " in wearinefs and painfulnefs," or, 
as it mould more literally be rendered, " in labour and 
" wearifomenefs," kcttov km ^o^ey. So alfo, in 1 Theff. 
ii. 9. he fays, " For ye remember, brethren, our labour 
* f and travel," or, as it more properly means, u our la- 
u bour and wearifomenefs " %.67rcv x.ui ftoftQov. Since xo7rtc&& 
then, as we have feen, which is tranflated, in 1 Tim. v. 17. 
" to labour," properly fignifies the common duty and 
work of every teacher, and iince the apoflle, when he 
intends to denote an extraordinary exertion, couples it 
with fuch words as " much" (7ro>.Xa), or " more abun- 
*« dantly" (/rg^s-er^), it feems plain that, in this 
paiTage, the elders who are faid to labour in word and 
doctrine, are not perfons who make extraordinary exer- 
tions in preaching, but limply fuch as*perform the com- 
mon duties of teaching elders. But if two kinds of elders 
be mentioned in that pafFage, and if thofe who labour in 
the word and doclrine be fuch as are engaged only in the 
common duties of teaching elders, does it not follow, 
agreeably to the introductory claufe of the verfe, that 
there are to be elders in the church diftiticl from the for- 
mer, and who, when they merely rule well, though they 
do not teach, are entitled, on account of it, to double 
honour ? 

Others, in fine, have afferted with Downham, and 
Sutclive, and other ancient Epifcopalians, that the word 
r/pj, here tranflated honour, denotes not merely honour, 

* Kotros non eft fimplex labor, fed labor cum fumma cura et foli- 
citudine conjun&us; poxQo$ amplius addit : eft enim labor, non fo- 
lum folicitudinem, fed etiam defatigationem conjun&am habens. 
Cum enim quis diu multumque operatus eft, folet, laboris mole 
preflus, defatigari. 



Letter XI. 185 

but, as appears from a Homily of Chryfoftom on the 
paffage, and the Expofitions of Calvin, and Beza, and 
Bullinger, a6 well as the following verfe, maintenance 
aifo. But if it mean maintenance, and if two kinds 
or elders be mentioned, each of them mull be entitled to 
double or proper maintenance, a circumftance which, in 
their view, would be extremely inconfiftent. On this 
objection alfo Mr. Ballentine lays confiderable flrefs, and 
urges it againft Prefbyterians with abundance of confi- 
dence. But I do not fee on what principle it is incon- 
fiftent with the tenets of Prefbyterians to grant even to 
lay-elders proper maintenance, if their circumftances re- 
quire it, or if at any time they are called from their 
employments to the bufinefs of the church longer than 
their fecular interefts permit. Befides, it is evident from 
the diftin&ion which is here ftated between elders who 
only rule, and elders who teach and give themfelves 
wholly to their facred vocation, that attention is, in the 
firft place, to be paid to the maintenance of the latter. 
The former, if they need it, are to receive maintenance ; 
but it is efpecially to be given to fuch as preach, and have 
no other means of procuring fubfillence. If, after they 
are provided for, the church is able to compenfate the 
lay-elders for that time which they devote to her particu- 
lar bufinefs, me is bound to do it. Is it objected to this 
reafoning, as has often been done by Independents*, 
that the terms elder and bifhop are applied in fcripture 
to the fame individuals, and as every bifhop is required 
by Paul (1 Tim. iii. 2.) to be " apt to teach," none 
fhouid be elders who are not public teachers ? It is re- 
plied, that fucii an inference is not deducible from the 
paffage All that is afTerted in it appears limply to be 
this, that an elder, or bifhop, fhould be fitted to teach, 
according to the ftation which he holds in the church. 



* See Sandcman's Letter to Mr. Wilfon. 



i86 



Letter XI. 



The preaching elder fhould be qualified to teach publicly, 
according to the nature of his particular function ; and 
the ruling elder fhould be qualified to teach, and admo- 
nifh, and counfel privately, according to the particular 
nature of his office. But becaufe an elder, or bifhop, 
Jhould be apt to teach, according to the particular nature of 
his office, can it fairly be inferred that none are to be elders 
but thofe who are qualified to be preachers of the gofpel ? 

If it is ft ill contended, that as all the elders of the 
church of Ephefus are commanded by Paul (Acts xx. 
28.) to feed that church, they muft all have been mini- 
fters of the word, becaufe it is the province of the 
iriinifter, and not of the ruling elder, to feed the church ? 
It is anfwered, that though lay-elders cannot feed the 
church by public inftru&ions like the teaching elder, they 
may undoubtedly do fo in their private capacity, by that 
information, and counfel, and comfort, which they may 
communicate to the members. Befides, the word here 
tranflated " feed," frequently means to rule, as a fhep- 
herd does his flock, as was before obferved *, which is 
done by them no lefs than by the former. If the word 
then be tranflated to feed, it is obvious that the lay-elders 
might be enjoined by the apoflle to perform this duty as 
well as the miniflers, becaufe they were no lefs bound to 
feed the church by their private inftructions, than the 
former were bound to do fo by their public difcouries ; 
and if it be rendered to rule, it is evident that they were 
no lefs admitted to difcharge ihis office than the teachers 
themfelves. It cannot therefore be evinced from the 
prefent paflage, that there ought not to be an order of 
elders in the church, who barely rule, diftinft from the 
elders who rule and teach. 

In fhort, even conceding that, in both of thefe in- 
ftances, the terms refer to public teaching only, it cannot 
be inferred that becaufe elders in general are called thus 



* See Note, p. 56. 



Letter XI. 1S7 

to teach and feed, there are not other elders, who, 
though they govern the church, cannot perform thefe 
duties. General declarations, of whatever kind, very 
frequently admit of particular exceptions. It is faid, 
for example, refpeeting the whole of the tribe of Levi in 
general (Deut. xxxiii. 8. 10.), that " they mould teach 
" Jacob God's judgments, and Ifrael his law : that they 
" mould put incenfe before him, and whole burnt facrifice 
" upon his altar." And, agreeably to this, we are 
told that Jehofhaphat, when he had convened them 
upon a particular occafion (2 Chron. xxix. 5.), thus ad- 
drefTed all of them (ver. n.), " My fons, be not now 
" negligent, for the Lord hath chofen you to ftand 
" before him, to ferve him, and that you mould mini- 
" Iter unto him, and burn incenfe." Though all of them 
however are faid, in the one paffage, to have been originally 
appointed to burn incenfe before God, and though all 
of them are commanded to do fo in the other, yet we 
know, from other palTages, that there were many of the 
Levites who, though employed in the fervice of the an- 
cient fanctuary, were not authorized to perform this 
part of the facerdotal function. Allowing then that it 
could even be proved that elders in general are required 
by Paul to be apt to preach, and that the whole of the 
elders in the church of Ephefus are apparently enjoined 
to perform this function (and this cannot be demon- 
ftrated), if it can be evinced, from other pajfages, that 
there mould be a clafs of elders who are merely to rule 
and not to preach, it will no more follow, from thefe 
general injunctions, that thefe mould not exift in every 
church, than it will follow, from the palTages before pro- 
duced, that none were connected with the tribe of Levi, 
or admitted to minifter in the ancient fanctuary, but 
fuch as burned incenfe. 

On the whole, as this feparate order of elders feems 
clearly to be authorized by the facred oracles, fo it ap- 



i88 



Letter XI. 



pears from the writings of the primitive fathers, that 
even from the earlieft ages it exifted in the church. In 
the year 103, we meet with thefe words in the very fame 
fentence of the Gefta Purgationis Caeciliani et Felicis : 
u Pre/by teri, diacones, et feniores, u e. The prefbyters or 
" pallors, the deacons and elders and a little after 
that, " Adhibete conclericos et feniores plebis, eccle- 
u fiafticos viros, et inquirant diligenter quse lint iftse 
" dilTenfiones, I. e. Add the fellow-clergymen and elders 
u of the people, ecclefiailical men, and let them in- 
" quire diligently what are thefe dhTenfions." In that 
alTembly likewife, different letters were produced and 
read : one addrelfed, " Clero et fenioribus, i. e. To the 
" clergymen and the elders and another, " Clericis 
" et fenioribus, i.e. To the clergymen and the elders. 99 
Origen too, who flourifhed only a little more than 200 
years after Chrift, has thefe expreffions in the third book 
of his Treatife againft Celfus : " There are fome rulers 
" appointed who may inquire concerning the converfation 
" and manners of thofe that arc admitted, that they may 
" debar from the congregation fuch as commit filthinefs." 
But does not this contain a rr.oft accurate defcription of 
one important part of the office of the elder who is barely 
to rule ? Cyprian moreover, bifhop of Carthage, who 
lived about 240 years after Chrift, in his Thirty-ninth 
EpUlle, book iv. (according to the edition of Goulart), 
writing to his prefbyters, and elders, and people, reflect- 
ing one Numidicus, enjoins that he mould be reckoned 
with the prefbyters of that church, and fhould fit with 
the clergy , to make up their Prefbytery. And yet it 
would feem that it was only as a ruling, and not a 
teaching prefbyter, that he was to be received by tbem : 
for he adds, " Et promovebitur quidem, cum Deus per- 
€t miferit, ad ampltorem locum religionis fuae, quando in 
tf praefentiam protegente Domino venerimus ; i. e. And 
" indeed, if it be the will of God, he fhall be promoted 



Letter XI. 



189 



to a more dijlinguifloed place of his religion, or religious 
" function, when, through the Lord's protection, we 
« mall arrive." But what more honourable place could 
he ^attain, if he was already a teaching elder, and confe- 
quently, at that period, next to the bifhop ? In the paf- 
fage before quoted, from the Commentaries of Ambrofe, 
upon 1 Tim. v. 1. the teftimony which is given to the 
exiilence, in the church, of an order of elders who 
merely ruled, and were diftinct from thofe who alfo 
preached, is ftrong and pointed. He mews, that by the 
elders or fenio^es, of whom he fpeaks, he does not mean 
only a few of the more aged and experienced of the 
members, for he compares them to the elders in the Jewi/h 
fynagogue, and attributes to them an equality of power, 
and we know that the latter were not merely private 
members of the fynagogue, venerable for their wifdom as 
well as age, but elders by office. He difcovers alfo no 
lefs clearly, that he does not intend fimply, by the elders 
to whom he refers, perfons whofe opinion was occafionally 
confulted in difficult matters, for he fays exprefsly, that 
" without their counfel nothing was done in the church : 
" Unde et fynagoga et poftea ecclefia feniores habuit, 
" quorum fine confilio nihil agebatur in ecclejia" And that 
thefe elders likevvife were admitted not only to ftate their 
opinion and deliver their advice, but to rule with an 
authority not inferior to that of the clergy, he no lefs 
plainly declares ; for he afcribes to the pride and ambi- 
tion of the teachers, the difcontinuance of this order in a 
number of places, which, while it remained amongft them, 
curbed the former, and fet bounds to the latter. But 
how could thefe elders have reffcrained their ambition, and 
prevented their undue afTumptions of power, if they 
were permitted in the ancient church, to deliver an advice 
only, which might be adopted or rejected by the clergy 
at pleafure ? Indeed fo incontrovertible did this tefti- 
mony for the exiftence of this order of office-bearers, ia 



igo Letter XI. 

the ancient church, appear to many who were opponents 
of Prefbytery, that it was not only admitted, as we have 
already feen, by fome of the more candid of the ancient 
Epifcopalians, but by fome of the mod refpeclable even 
of the Independents themfeives. Among thefe is in- 
cluded, Mr, Cotton of America, already mentioned, 
who, in his Way of the Churches in New England, 
cap. ii. feci:, ii. p. 30. acknowledges it to be a clear 
and irreliftible proof of the exiftence of this order in the 
ancient church, and vindicates the argument which he 
adduces from this paffage, for the neceffity of this order 
even in Independent churches, from the exceptions and 
cavils of fome of his brethren and others. And, in fine, 
Augufline, bimop of Hippo, who lived about the year 
420, often refers to thefe elders in his writings. Thus, 
in his Treatife againft Crefconius, lib. iii. cap. lvi. 
" Peregrinus prefbyter et feniores Mullicanse regionis, 
" u e. Peregrine the prefbyter, and the elders of the 
u Muftican difcrict," where he ebvioufly diftinguifhes 
between the paftor or prefbyter who taught, and feparate 
elders or fenicrs. Thus, alfo, he addreffes one of his 
letters to his church at Hippo (Epift. cxxxix.), " Biiec- 
f* tiffimis fratribus, clero, fenioribus, et univerfae plebi 
•* ecclefiae Hipponenlis, i, e. To the beloved brethren, 
" the clergy, or clergyman, the elders, and all the 
" people of the church at Hippo," where he makes an 
obvious discrimination between the clergy, or clergyman, 
the elders, and the people. And were it thought requifite, 
it would be eafy to bring forward other teftimonies from 
Eufebius, and Ifidore, and Jerome, and others, no lefs 
clearly demonstrative of the exigence of this order in the 
primitive church. What has already been Hated how- 
ever, appears fufficiently to eftablifh the facl: ; and con- 
fequently we feem equally authorized by thefe documents 
to affirm that this order obtained in the ages which fuc- 
ceeded the apoftles, as we feem to be authorized by rea- 



Letter XI. ipi 

fon to affirm that it is neceffary, and by fcripture to 
maintain that it is divinely appointed. 

^o contend then with fome Independents, that every 
congregation mould not be governed by what has been 
denominated by Prefbyterians a Seffion, becaufe the term 
does not occur in the facred volume, though the doc- 
trine feems to be undeniable, muft be foolifh and contra- 
dictory. Upon the fame principle it would follow, 
according to the reafonings of Socinians and Arminians, 
that becaufe the terms Trinity, fatisfadlion, original fin, 
efficacious grace, particular redemption, are not to be 
found in the facred oracles, thefe doctrines are merely 
inventions of men. If Independents however, as well as 
others, admit thefe doctrines, becaufe they are revealed 
in fcripture, though thefe particular terms are not there 
employed to denote them, on the fame principle is it not 
plain that if it be taught in fcripture that only fome, and 
not all the members indifcriminately> are authorized to go- 
vern a particular congregation, and that among thefe 
are included elders who do not teach, but limply rule, 
as well as elders who not only rule but teach, the doc- 
trine of Seffions is clearly eftablifhed, though that parti' 
cular word is not to be met with in the facred volume ? 



LETTER XII. 

SIR, 

The laft point of government in which you differ from 
Prefbyterians, is their courts of review ; or the fubordi- 
nation of a particular congregation, with its elders, to 
the authoritative infpe&ion and controul of a Prefbytery, 
and of a Prefbytery to that of a Synod and AfTembly. 
It is propofed accordingly, agreeably to our method, to 



192 Letter XII. 

conclude thefe Inquiries upon this part of the fubjeA, 
with the confideration of this diftinguifhing principle of 
Prefbytery, with the different objections which you have 
advanced againft it. 

With regard to the propriety of ecclefiaflical courts 
fuperior to the rulers of a particular congregation, much 
diverfity of fentiment has obtained even among Inde- 
pendents. Some, in the greatnefs of their zeal againfl 
Prefbytery, have maintained that it is unlawful for an 
Independent congregation, even in a difficult cafe, to 
convene the pallors of any other churches merely to afk 
their advice. Such a meafure, in their opinion*, would 
be prejudicial to the improvement of the members in 
knowledge, for if they were affured that in every cafe 
of difficulty and importance they might have recourfe to 
this fuperior affembly, though merely for counfel, it would 
make them lefs eager to advance in an acquaintance with 
the truths and laws of Chrift. Every feparate church 
therefore, according to them, mud be completely inde- 
pendent even of the affijlance of others, and muft not 
folicit, in any inftance, the advice of their office-bearer^ 
met in a collective or afTociated capacity. It feems 
obvious however, that before this reafoning can be con- 
fidered as valid, it muil be proved that infallibility has 
been the attainment of every Independent congregation ; 
or why mould it refufe to apply for affiftance, in any 
arduous or intereiling cafe, to an affembly of the office- 
bearers of other churches 1 Or, if infallibility be dif- 
claimed by them, it mould be demonflrated that though 
they nuiy err, it is better for them to do fo, fince they 
have the fatisfa&ion of being regarded as the unaffifled 
arbiters in all their affairs, than to be prevented from 
this evil, by being aided by the opinion and counfel of 
others. And, in fhort, upon the fame principle that it 



* See Miflionary Magazine for Oftober 1804, p. 448. 



Letter XII. 193 

is affirmed that the members of a particular congregation 
ought not to apply to others for advice, becaufe it may 
abate their zeal to improve in knowledge fo as to be 
enafeled to decide in every caufe, it may be proved that 
the offence mentioned by our Saviour in Matth. xviii. 
mould be finally determined by the two or three brethren 
before whom it is enjoined to be firft told, and ought not 
to be announced to the church at all. If announced to 
the church for their examination and judgment, may it 
not, if the preceding argument were juft, diminiih the 
motives which are prefented to each of the members indi- 
vidually to endeavour to improve, fo as to be himielf qua- 
lified, with the afiiftance of a fingle brother, finally to 
decide a caufe ? And, upon the fame ground alfo, is it 
not manifeft that there fnould be no fubordination in 
civil courts, becaufe, if this principle be admitted, it 
would make the members of the lowed of fuch affocia- 
tions lefs eager to improve in juridical knowledge, than 
if they knew that, in every inftance, they were to depend 
folely on their own judgment and fagacity, and were 
not to folicit the afiiftance of others ? 

While fuch however are the fentiments of others, you 
profefs to hold a very oppofite opinion, and admit at 
once the lawfulnefs and the utility of the aiTociations of the 
paftors of a number of churches to deliberate in points of 
intricacy and magnitude. The power however which 
you grant to thefe affociations is purely confultative, and 
differs not only from that degree of authority which is 
allowed by Prefbyterians to a Prefbytery, over the gover- 
nors of a particular congregation, and to a Synod, over the 
members of a particular Prefbytery, but even from what 
was vefted by the refpe&able ancient Independents, 
already quoted, in their occafional Synods. Not only 
does Mr. Hooker acknowledge, in his Survey, p. 4. 
chap. i. ii. that the afTociation of the paftors of dif- 
ferent congregations, in one court or Prefbytery, is lawful 

R 



194 



Letter XIL 



and beneficial, and not only does he grant that they may 
be of " different forts and degrees, fome leffer, fome 
" greater, ClafTes, Synods, and thefe Provincial, National, 
" OEcumenicalox Univerfal but his brother Mr. Cotton, 
in his book entitled the Keys of the Kingdom, ufes very 
remarkable exprefiions (chap, vi.) refpe&ing the power 
of fuch courts. *' They have power," fays he, " not 
" only to give light and counfell in matter of truth and 
" practice, but alfo to command and enjoine the things to 
u be believed and done. The exprefle words of the 
" fynodicall letter, Acts xv. 27. imply no leffe. It is 
" an a£t of the power of the keyes to binde burdens ; 
" and this binding power arifeth not only materially 
" from the weight of the matters impofed, but alfo 
" formally from the authority of the Synod, which being 
" an ordinance of Chrift, bindeth the more for the 
" Synod's fake." The Weftminfter Independents alfo, 
in their debate with the Affembly, not only exprefsly 
allow, p. 115. 137. 138. that " Synods are an holy or- 
46 dinance of God, and of great life for the finding out 
« and declaring of truth in difficult cafes, and for heal- 
" ing offences," but likewife declare, " that all the 
" churches in a province, being offended at a particular 
" congregation, may call that fingle congregation to 
account ; yea, all the churches in a nation, may call one 
" or more congregations to an account — that they may 
" examine and admonifh, and, in cafe of obftinacy, 
4C declare them to be fubverters of the faith — that they 
" are of ufe to give advice to the magi/Irate in matters 
" of religion," p. 1 1 5. — " that they have authority to de- 
" t ermine concerning controverfies of faith — that their deter- 
€t minations are to be received with great honour and 
" confeientious refpe& and obligation, as from Chrift — ■ 
" that if an offending congregation refufe to fubmit to 
" their determinations, they may withdraw from them, 
" and deny church-communion and feilowfliip with 



Letter XII. 



u them — and that this fentence of non-communion may 
** be ratified and backed with the authority of the civil 
" ma^giftrate, to the end it may be the more effe&ual," 
p. 138.* Mr. Thomas Goodwin, moreover, in his Trea- 
tife on the Government of the Church of Chrift, p. 202. 
very pointedly afferts, " that as we acknowledge elective 
" occafional Synods of the eiders of many churches, as 
" the churches have need to refer cafes of difference to 
" them : fo in cafe of mal-adminiftration, or an unjuft 
" proceeding, in the fentence of excommunication, and 
u the like, we acknowledge appeals or complaints may be 
" made to other churches ; and the elders of thofe 
" churches met in a Synod, who, being offended, may, 
" as an ordinance of Chrift, judge and declare that fentence 
" to be null, void, and unjuft ; and that not {imply, as 
*' any company of men may fo judge, giving their judg- 
" ments of a fact done ; but as an ordinance of Chrift 
" in fuch cafes, and for that end, fancltfied by him to 
«* judge and declare in matters of difference. " And, again, 
he adds, " In cafe this church will not own this perfon 
" thus wrongfully ejected ; thefe churches, or any of them, 
" upon this determination of their elders (the churches 
" at their return approving the fentence), may both 
** receive the party in among themfelves, and fo relieve 
" the man ; and further alfo profefs to hold no communion 

* Since it is evident from this and other paflages in the papers 
of thefe forerunners of our prefent Independents, that they no 
lefs certainly believed in the propriety of a connection between 
the church and ftate than our Prejbyterian Eftahlifoment does, nay, as 
their ideas on this fubjet! were greatly higher than what is profefled 
by it fince the act of toleration ; if the latter be viewed by them, 
on account of this connection, as worthy of being diftinguimed by 
the name of Babylon, upon the fame principle mult it not be ex- 
tended to their ancient predecefTors, and muft not modern Inde- 
pendents be confidered at leafl; as the children of thofe who were 
members and fuppoiters of fpiritual Babylon. 

R 2 



196 



Letter XII. 



" with that church, if they perceive that church doth 
" continue obftinate, having either for the manner pro- 
" ceeded therein, againft the common principles of equity 
" and right, or againft, and befide the principles where- 
" by churches are to proceed which that church itfelf 
" hath, and doth hold forth and profefs." But does 
not this, whatever was intended by the author, plain- 
ly fan&ion an authoritative court of review P Is it not 
here declared, that when an improper decifion is patted 
by the rulers of any particular congregation, the perfons 
who are aggrieved may appeal and complain to a meeting 
of the elders of a number of dljlincl and nominally inde- 
pendent congregations — That thefe minifters, met in 
this court, may, as an ordinance of Chri/l, declare that 
fentence to be null and void, and enjoin that church to 
review their deed ; and — that if the church which has 
erred perfifts in its error, thefe rninifters of feparate and 
distincl congregations may pafs a decifion, declaring that 
they fhall henceforth be cut off from their communion, 
which decifion, if ratified by the confent of their churches, 
fhall be confidered as binding ? . Does this declaration 
however of what the needs of the church at prefent 
demand (and the author cannot be fuppofed to have been 
partial to Prefbytery), correfpond with what you tell 
us fhould be the fituation of every congregation, and what 
you glory in as the boaft of every Independent fociety ? 
Was it the opinion of this man, even though an Inde- 
pendent, that " every particular congregation," as you 
allege, " mould have the fole government of its own 
" affairs, and be amenable to no fociety of men under 
" heaven ; and that while, in reference to its own mem- 
u bers, its decifion was final, it mould pretend to inter- 
* c fere with none elfe ?" Or whatever might be the 
• independency which he might afcribe to them in profeffion, 
does he not fubjedt them as really to the authoritative 
controul of this affembly of the pallors of other congrega- 



Letter XII. 



197 



tions, If fupported by their churches, as any Pre/hyteriati 
congregation is to that of a Prefbytery, or a Prefbytery 
is to that of a Synod or Affembly * ? The fame remark 
which is here offered upon Goodwin, may be alfo ap- 
plied to the extract which was made from the papers of 
the reft of the Weftminfler Independents. 

That fimilar fentiments were profefTed by the great 
Dr. Owen is evident from his book on the Nature and 
Government of the Gofpel-church. " No church there- 
" fore," fays he (p. 413.)* " is fo independent, as that it 
H can always, and in all cafes, obferve the duties it owes 
" unto the Lord Chrift and the church catholic, by all 
" thofe powers which it is able to a& in itfelf diftinftly t 

* Is it objected, that the cafe mud undoubtedly be different, 
becaufe the congregation which has erred may either obey or re- 
ject the decifion of thefe paftors, even though fupported by their 
churches ? It is replied, that if they do fo, according to Goodwin, 
even though an Independent, they muft be cut off from their 
communion ; and in what rsfpecl does this differ from the autho- 
rity which is claimed by a Prefbytery, or Synod, as a court of re- 
vi . >v? This convention of the paftors of Independent churches, 
tho igh they profefs merely to deliver an advice to the congrega- 
tion which has erred, and require them fimply to review their 
fentence, tell them at the fame time, that if they do not pro- 
nounce it " null and void,'* and adopt the decifion whichthey 
poiat out, no fellowship can henceforth be granted to them with 
their churches. \nd to fay that the congregations to which thefe 
paftors belong mull ratify this determination before it can be 
valid, does not alter the matter, but only demonftrates that this 
power of controul, and authoritative review, over a particular 
congregation, which Prefbyterians affirm ought to be lodged in a 
Prefbytery, or Synod, or Affembly, mould be vefted alfo in the 
members of thefe different churches as well as their paftors. The 
neceility of the iubordination of this church to the review of thefe 
others is (till admitted ; and this fdbordination, in oppofition to 
you and the reft of your brethren, one of the wifeft and beft of 
the ancient Independents affirms to be indifpenfable for promoting 
the interefts of the church of God. 

R3 



198 



Letter XII. 



** without conjunction with others. And the church that 
" confines its duty unto the ads of its own affemblies, 
" cuts iff elf off from the external communion of the church 
u catholic ; nor will it be fafe for any man to commit the 
" conducl of his foul to fuch a church. "Wherefore," he 
adds, " this adding in Synods is an injlitution of Jefus 
(i Chryi ; not in an exprefs command, but in the nature 
4i of the thing it f elf fortified with apojlolical example. For 
" having erected fuch a church-ftate, and difpofed all 
" his churches into that order and mutual relation unto 
u one another, as that none of them can be complete, or 
u difcharge their whole duty without mutual advice and 
*' counfel ; he hath thereby ordained this way of their 
u communion in Synods, no other being pojftble unto that 
u end. And hereby fuch conventions are interefled in 
u the promife of his prefence, namely, that, where two 
u or three are gathered together in his name, there he 
€t will be in the midft of them. For thefe affemblies 

45 being the necefTary effect of his own conftitution in 
" the nature and ufe of his churches, are, or may be, in 
u his name, and fo enjoy his prefence. " 

Befides, he obferves (p. 414. ), that " the end of all 
ec particular churches is the edification of the church 
<f catholic unto the glory of God in Chrift. And it is 
** evident, that in many inftances this cannot be attained, 
u yea, that it mujl be fmfully negleBed, unlefs this way for 

46 the prefervation and carrying of it on be attended 
* c unto. Truth, peace, and love, may be loft among 
" churches, and fo the union of the catholic church in 
u them be diffolved, unlefs this means for their preferva- 
€< tion and reparation be made ufe of. And that parti- 
4i cular church which extends not its duty beyond its own 
4i affemblies and members, is fallen off" from the principal end 
*' of its inflitution. And every principle, opinion, or perfua- 
44 Jion, that inclines any church to confine its care and 
" duty unto its own edification only, yea, or of thofe 



Letter XII. 199 

M only which agree with it in fome peculiar practice, 
" making it neglective of all due means of the edification 
" of the church catholic, is fchifmaticaL 

^ There is direction hereunto included in the order 
" and method of church-proceedings in cafe of offence, 
" prefcribed unto it by Chrift himfelf. The beginning 
" and rife of it is between two individual perfons ; 
" thence is it carried unto the cognizance and judgment 
" of two or three others before unconcerned ; from them 
" it is to be brought unto the church ; and there is no 
" doubt but the church hath power to determine con- 
" cerning it, as unto its own communion, to continue 
u the offender in it, or reject him from it. This muft 
" abide, as unto outward order and the prefervation of 
" peace. But no church is infallible in their judgment 
" abfolutely in any cafe ; and in many, their determi- 
" nations may be fo doubtful as not to affect the con- 
11 fcience of him who is cenfured. But fuch a per- 
" fon is not only a member of that particular church, 
u but by virtue thereof, of the catholic church alfo. It 
" is necefTary therefore that he mould be heard and judged 
" as unto his intereft therein, if he do defire it. And 
" this can no way be done, but by fuch Synods as we fhall 
u immediately defcribe. 

" Synods" (p. 416.) " are confecrated unto the ufe 
" of the church in all ages, by the example of the apoftles, 
" in their guidance of the firft churches of Jews and 
" Gentiles ; which hath the force of a divine inftitution t 
" as being given by them under the infallible conduct 
" of the Holy Ghoft, Acts xv. which we fhall fpeak 
" farther unto immediately. 

" Upon the whole," he remarks, p. 419. " if it be 
" reported or known by credible teftimony, that any 
" church hath admitted into the exercife of divine wor- 
" fhip any thing fuperftitious or vain, or if the members 
u of it walk like thofe defcribed by the apoftle, Philip. 



200 



Letter XIL 



" iii. 18, 19. unto the difhonour of the gofpel, and of 
<c the ways of Chrift, the church itfelf not endeavouring 
<c its own reformation and repentance ; other churches, 
" walking in communion therewith, by virtue of their 
44 common intereft in the glory of Chrift, and honour 
" of the gofpel, after more private ways for its reduc- 
41 tion, as opportunity and duty may fuggeft unto their 
14 elders, ought to affemble in a Synod for advice, either 
" as to the ufe of farther means for the recovery of fuch 
4£ a church, or to withhold communion from it in cafe of 
44 obftinacy in its evil ways. The want of a due at- 
44 tendance unto this part of the communion of churches, 
44 with refpecx unto gofpel-wormip in its purity, and 
gofpel-obedience in its power, was a great means of the 
4< decay and apoftafy of them all. By reafon of this 
44 negligence, inftead of being helpful one to another, 
44 for their mutual recovery, and the revival of the things 
ff that were ready to die, they gradually infedied one 
44 another, according as they fell into their decays, and 
44 countenanced one another by Uieir examples unto a 
44 continuance in fuch diforders." And 'with refpecr. to 
the extent of thefe Synods, in p. 426. he fays, " Yet 
44 this I (hall fay, that whereas it is eminently ufeful unU> 
44 the church catholic, that all the churches profiling 
44 the fame doctrine of faith, within the limits of the 
44 fame fupreme civil government, mould hold conftant 
44 actual communion among themftlves unto the ends of 
44 it before mentioned, I fee not how it can be any 
44 abridgment of the liberty of particular churches , or inter- 
44 fere with any of their rights which they hold by 
44 divine inftitution, if through more conftant lejfer 
44 Synods for advice, there be a communication of their 
44 mutual concerns to thofe that are greater, until, if 
44 occafion require, and if it be expedient, there be a 
" General Affembly of them all, to advife about any thing 
w wherein they are all concerned. " 



Letter XII. 



201 



Thus while many of the mod zealous modern Inde- 
pendents reprobate the idea of convening the pallors of 
other congregations in a Preibytery, or Synod, or Gene- 
ral AfTembly, to review, in any cafe of error or injuflice, 
a decifiori which has been paffed in a particular congre- 
gation, the opinion which was held by this moft dif- 
tinguifhed ancient advocate for Independency was directly 
oppofite. Every church which is not connected with 
fuch courts of fuperintendence (and this is the cafe cer- 
tainly with the Tabernacle-churches), " is cut off," at 
leaft in his view, " from the external communion of the 
" church catholic in a moft important relation ; nor will 
" it be fafe," he even affirms, " for any man," however 
it may be admired and applauded by many, " to commit 
" his foul to fuch a church. " Nay, however fuch courts 
may he decried by his modern, but perhaps not more 
enlightened followers, " no church," according to him, 
u can be complete without them ; and the church which 
" wants them, is fallen off from the principal end of its 
" inftitution ; and every opinion, principle, or perfua- 
" (ion, that leads to the neglecl: of them, is fchifmatical" 
And, in fhort, while fome of our modern Independents 
treat with derilion Prefbyteries and Synods as they ob- 
tain among Prefbyterians, and afk with triumph where 
we can difcover fuch courts in fcripture, the illuftrious 
Owen, whofe acquaintance with the fcriptures was mofl 
probably not lefs profound and extenfive than theirs, ex- 
prefsly declares them " to be an injlitution of Chrijl, not in an 
M exprefs command, but in the nature of the thing itfelf, 
" fortified with apojlolical example. 99 And, again, that 
" they are confecrated unto the ufe of the church in all 
11 ages, by the example of the apojlles, in their guidance of 
" the firft churches of the Jews and Gentiles ; which 
" hath the force of a divine institution, as being given by 
" them under the infallible conducl of the Holy Ghost J 9 
In fine, he allows that there may be not only leffer Synods, 



202 



Letter XII. 



or meetings, as the word fignifies, of the pallors of 
churches in the fame communion, but " Synods that 
" are greater, until, if occafion require, and if it be ex- 
" pedient, there be a General Affembly of them all, to 
" advife about any thing wherein they are all concerned." 
It is obvious, then, that if our prefent Independents 
fneer at Prefbyterians when they affirm that fuch courts 
are authorized by fcripture, they muft connect with them, 
in their fneer, their own not lefs venerable predeceffors, 
Owen, and Cotton, and Hooker, and Goodwin, with 
his fix moll refpe&able brethren in the Weftminfter 
Affembly. And while, in their fuperior wifdom, they 
look down with pity upon Prefbyterians in general when 
they attempt to prove the authority of fuch courts from 
fcripture, and confider them as wrelling the facred oracles, 
they ought undoubtedly to look back with the fame regret 
and compaflion upon their own erring forefathers, who, lefs 
judicious or candid than their more perfect children, 
unfortunately believed alfo in Prefbyteries, and Sy- 
nods, and General AfTembHes- — courts which, though 
but confultative, are not more clearly demonflrahle 
than thofe of Prefbyterians are from the word of 
©f God. 

It may indeed be alleged, that thefe courts of review, 
for which Dr. Owen contends, fuperior to the elderfhip 
of a particular congregation, were warranted only to 
deliver an advice to that individual church, but could 
not exercife over it any authoritative rule. He affirms 
however, in common with Goodwin, that if this parti- 
cular congregation does not comply with the decifion of 
a Synod or Affembly, all the churches, whofe reprefen- 
tatives fit in thefe courts, " may withhold communion 
" from it." Is not this however, by whatever name you 
call it, as much authority over this particular congrega- 
tion, even by the paftors and members of other churches, 
as is ever affumed by a Prefbyterian Synod ? and is not 



Lettbr XII. 203 

this the only difference between them, that the Synod* 
of the latter alone exercife this authoritative power, 
while ihe members at large of the various churches re- 
prefented in the Synods which were argued for by the 
former, together with the paftors, were to be vetted 
with this power over that particular church ? Do not 
many of the arguments of Dr. Owen moreover, what- 
ever he defigned, prove that the minifters of a number 
of churches, met in a Synod, have as much power over 
any church in a particular communion, which errs either 
in doctrine or difcipline, as the governors of any parti- 
cular congregation have over any member of that con- 
gregation, who walks unworthily of the Chriftian cha- 
racter ? Nay, as was before remarked, does he not 
directly fay, that " as a Chriftian is not only a member 
" of a particular church, but, by virtue thereof, of the 
u catholic church alfo, it is necefTary (if he has been 
" aggrieved by any decifion of the men who govern the 
" former) that he fnould be heard and judged as to his 
" intereft in the latter, if he do defire it ? And does he 
" not afTert, that this can no way be done, but by fuck 
" Synods as have been mentioned I" And, upon the 
whole, if it be doubted whether thefe confiderations 
evince that Dr. Owen, while he reprobated an imperious 
and unreafonable authority, would have granted to Synods, 
over particular churches, a degree of authority equal to 
that which is intrufted to them by Prefbyterians, let the 
following very ftrong and fatisfa&ory teftimony from his 
life be confulted. As the celebrated Whitefield, though 
by profeflion an Epifcopalian, is reported to have de- 
clared, that of all the ecclefiaftical conftitutions on earth, 
that of the church of Scotland appeared to him the moll 
excellent ; fo this great Independent has left an acknow- 
ledgment no Iefs honourable to her Prefbyterian admi- 
niftration and difcipline, which proves that he mull 
have agreed with her in her views of authority, while at 



Lettef. XII. 



the fame time he contended, as her rulers alfo do, 
that none, who could not fubmit to the deciiions of office- 
bearers in any particular inftance, mould be forced againft 
their will to continue in the church. <£ I have been the 
" larger," fays his biographer, in the account of him 
which is annexed to his book on Spiritual-mindednefs, 
p. 456. (i in this extract of the Doctor's opinion about 
M church^government, becaufe it mews (whatever might 
" have been his fentiments when younger) how much 
" he agreed with all Protestant churches, that of Eng- 
" land excepted, in this point, in the latter part of his 
(( days ; arid that had others been of his mind, the dif- 
" ference betwixt thofe called Prefbyterians and Inde- 
¥ pendents might eafily have been reconciled. He was of 
" fo healing a temper in this matter, that / heard him 
" fay, before a perfon of quality, and others, He could 
< 6 readily join with Prejbytery as it was exercifed in Scot- 
" land*." It may perhaps be alleged however, that 

* That fuch alfo were the fentiments of the Independents in 
Holland, the country where, according to the teftimony of 
Moiheim (vol. v. p. 406.), about two hundred years ago, congre- 
gational churches began to be formed, muft be evident to any one 
who attends either to their writings. or proceedings. The church 
at Rotterdam, for inftance, as we are informed by Hoornbeek, in 
his Summa Controverfiarum cum Infidelibus, Harreticis, et Schif- 
maticis, p. 778. having unjuftly depofed one of their minifters, 
the church at Arnheim wrote to them — dated the offence which 
their conduct had given to the reft of their brethren — requefted 
them to fubjett themfelves, with all their proceedings, to the re- 
view of a Synod, which was to be called for that purpofe — and 
told them, that fech a Synod was to be fummoned. The reafon 
which they aflign for it is, that " no particular church, in any 
" communion, ought to claim an exemption from giving an ac- 
" count of its conduct, or being cenfnrable by others fo repugnant, 
fay they, " to our fentiments is that independent liberty which is 
14 commonly objected to us" — a liberty, however, in which the 
prefent Independents fo much glory. This Synod having met in 
the city of Arnheim, and the members from Rotterdam having 



Letter XII. 



205 



though fuoh were the views of many ancient Inde- 
pendents refpecting Prefbyterian government, it is no 
argument why they mould ftill be retained by us, if we 
are not convinced of their utility or truth. It is granted 

been fummoned before them, the bufinefs was inveftigated for 
feveral days, and witnefTes were examined and parties heard. 
A decifion at laft being given againft the church, it publicly and 
humbly acknowledged its error, received its minifter, after he too 
had confeffed fome fault which he had committed, and, having 
appointed a folemn day of fading, humbled themfelves before 
God and men on account of their fin. The words of Hoornbeek 
(and Goodwin and Nye, it may be remarked, were members of 
this Synod) are the following : " Arnhemienfis coetus fcripfit ad 
" Roterodamenfem, fignificans datum fcandalum, ex temeraria 
" miniflri opprefiione, et depofitione, quare ab iis petit pateren- 
" tur in nomine Chrifti, et pro vindicando ejus hcmore, atque in 
" folatium opprem* miniftri, caufas examen coram reliquis fuse 
" nationis ecclefns, vel quibufcunque aliis hoc ipforum facto offen- 
u fis, inftitui ; utque fe fubjicerent (ita loquuntur, to fubjec"t 
" themfelves) Integra tortus negotii aftorumque omnium revifioni atque 
" examini. Quod ubi conceffirTent prompto lubentique animo, et 
*' advenifTent Arnhemo ii, quos fupfa diximus, inftitutufque con- 
" ventus fuiiTet, praemida adhortatione, quae eo fpeclabat ut 
" docerent, fingularem aliquam et particularem ecclefiam, quae 
" fibi datam exiftimat a Chrifto judicandi eos qui ejufdem fecum 
" corporis ac focietatis poteftatem, non debere fibi arrogare exempt 
" tionema rcddenda ratione, vel a cenjura aliorum ( an exemption from 
" giving account, or being cenfurablc by any other J, five magiftratus 
" fupra, five prcximarum ecclefiarum juxta fe. Tarn longe 
44 (dicunt) a mente noftra aberat independens ilia libertas, quas 
" nobis vulgo impingitur ; etiam turn quando minima nobis a 
t$ regno Anglicano dependentia, vel revertendi eo fpes videbatur. 
" Hie autem fuccefTus atque exitus Synodi illius fuit, ut, habita 
" aliquot dierum caufae cognitione, auditifque et examinatis variis 
** teftibus, quomodo in curia aliqua ubi vel maxime auttoritate res 
" agitur, defiderari poffet, ccetus qui ofFenderat, palam errorem 
" fuum agnoverit, et miniftrum, confeflum etiam in quo forte ipfe 
" peccaverat, reftituerit in priilinum fuum locum, indittoque 
" folemni jejunio, fe coram Deo ac hominibus propter peccatum 
u illud fuum mimiliarit." How different indeed from the opinion 

s 



206 



Letter XII. 



indeed, that our prefent Independents are certainly not 
bound, by the example of their forefathers, to admit any 
principle, or perform any duty towards God or man, 
however important, againft their convictions. Such 
teftimonies however In favour of Prefbytery, from many 
of the greateft and mod enlightened men that ever 
adorned their caufe, ought to lead them at leaft to re- 
view their more levelling and democratic principles * with 
diffidence and caution, and ought undoubtedly to teach 
them greater moderation and liberality than fome of 
them have difcovered in their language refpefting the 
-nature and tendency of a fyftem, which many of their 
moft diftinguiflied ancient ornaments either praftlcally 
admitted, or publicly commended. 



LETTER XIII. 

SIR, 

That it may not be imagined that this principle of 
Prefbytery has no foundation but the authority of re- 
fpe&able names, I {hall now endeavour to prove that it is 
citablifhed by the united evidence of reafon and fcripture. 

The following quotations from Baillie and Fergufon, 
two ancient Prefbyterians, contain, if I am not miftaken, 
a clear and accurate ftatement of the oppofite views 
which have been taken of this queftion. 

" Independents and Brownifts," fays Baillie, In his Dif- 

of thefe original Independents are th-e tenets of thofe who now 
affume their name, moft of whom are almoft as much difUmilar 
to them as to Prejbyterians, and many of whom, in their predilec- 
tion for illiterate minifters, and virulence againft churches of other 
denominations, refemble rather the Boltonians or Brownifts, than 
thofe who were diftinguifhed by the name of Independents J 

* i fpeak of their religious fentiments only. 



Letter XIII. 207 

fuafive from the Errors of the Times, u maintain that every 
H particular* church, every fmgle congregation, is inde- 
4< pendent from any Preibytery, any Synod, any Af- 
u fembly : This we deny, affirming the true dependence 
** and fubordination of parochial congregations to Pref- 
4< byteties, and of thefe to Synods ; to which we afcribe 
" power, authority, and jurifdi&ion p. 197. " Inde- 
" pendency is the full liberty of fuch a church (a par- 
£< ticular congregation) to difcharge all the parts of 
" religion, doctrine, facraments, SfctpTine\ and all within 
" itfelf, without all dependence, all Jul ordinal ion to any 
" other on earth, more or fewer, fo that the fmalle/l 
6i congregation, fuppofe of three perfons*, though it 
" fall into the grojfejl herefies> may not be controuled by 
" any orthodox Synod, were it cecumenic (or univerlal) 
" of all the churches in the world :" p. 198. 

" We come now," fays the other writer, p. 150. of his 
Brief Refutation of the Errors of Independency, Separa- 
tion, &c. ** to the fecond head, and it is that for which 
" mainly they are called Independents : The point they 
" affirm is this, that every particular church-feffion, or 
" congregational elderfhip (or, according to others, con- 
" g r egation), is furnifhed with the highest power of 
" church-government on earth, fo that there is no power 
" in the church above them to call them to an account, 
" when they go wrong, to refcind any ad once con- 
" eluded, though it were never fo unjuil. They grant, 
" that a Synod of minifters and elders may meet to con- 
" fult about matters f, but withal affirm, that they have 

* There are ibme of them in Glafgow which confifl: only of 
eight perfonsr 

f You objed to the propriety of thefe afiociations of mini- 
iters being confidered as the reprefentatives of the churches 
to which they belong, and propofe that they mould meet only in 
their private characters, as an aflembly of individuals, and not in 
their public official capacity. 

s 2 



208 



Letter XIII. 



" no ecclefiaftical power to command In the Lord any 
" congregation whatfoever : So that if a man be wrong- 
u ed by a Seffion (or congregation) ; as for inftance, if 
*' he be unjuftly cenfured (as it may very readily fall 
" out), he muft fit with his wrong, there is no power to 
ct right it till Chrijl come in the clouds : Or if a particular 
" congregation divide, turn heretics, run wrong (as 
*' many of the Independent congregations do), there is 
" no church-power to heal the breach, unlefs it be by 
u an advice, which they may either follow, or 

" not follow, as likes them beft. We again grant, 
M that particular elderfhips have a power from Jefus 
il Chrift to exercife difcipline in thefe things which con- 
" cern the congregation in particular. But as for other 
" things of more public concernment, that is to fay, 
4< things that concern other congregations as well as 
M them, thefe ought to be handled by a fuperior judi- 
u catory ; and that even in thofe things of particular 
" concernment^ they are liable to appeals, and the in- 
" fpedion of the fuperior judicatory ; fo that wherein 
M they {hall be found wrong, partial, or erroneous, they 
«« may be called to an account. 

" We allow unto particular congregations an elder- 
u fhip and power of difcipline within themfelves, to 
11 judge of thefe things that are of their particular con- 
" cernment : But as for things wherein other congrega- 
M tions are concerned with them, we hold that fuch do 
" belong to fuperior judicatories, according totheiuk, 
u What belongs unto ally Jhould be handled by all. Second- 
" lv, we do not give power to any one Jingle congregation 
" above another ; We fay, that all congregations (the leajl 
" as well as the greatejl) are equal in power. We do 
•« only fay, that all particular congregations mould be 
« fubjed to a Prefbytery, made up of elders taken from 
" among themfelves, wherein no congregation can chal- 



Letter XIII. 



209 



u lenge power more than another : the meaneft hath as 
€t great power in them as the greateft." 

When it is affirmed by Prefbyterians, that every parti- 
cular congregation ought not to be independent of a 
Prcfbytery or Synod, it is not intended that its rulers, 
or office-bearers, are to be dependent upon them for the 
exercife of their power after they are invefted with it, or 
that they may be deprived of it by them at pleafure, in 
that fociety which they govern. All that is defigned is 
fimply that they are fubjecl, in any cafe of error, or any 
inftance of mal-adminiftration, to the authoritative re- 
view of the minifters and elcfers of a number of congre- 
gations met as a Prefbytery ; and, perhaps, it would be 
better, as the judicious Hoornbeek has obferved, to ex- 
prefs their relation to fuch a court by the terms fubjefiion 
or fubordination, than by the word dependence, which is 
occaiionally ufed by fome ancient Preibyterians *. 

* The words of this very excellent and candid writer, in his 
book again ft fchifmatics, p. 771. deferve to be quoted. " Quid- 
" nam vero hie tanti, iterum qusero, quod magnarum contentionum^ 
" et tumukuum caufa eiTe debeat? qttodque non vel tolerari vel 
u caffiponi, fi non corrigi facile poffit ? Ecclefiam particularem 
** habere omnem poteftatem ecclefiafticam infe, neque earn accipere 
" a Syuodo, vel ab aim fuperioribus, certum eft. Pone (verbi caufa) 
" ut modo una particularis fit ecckfia, vel in mundo, vel in aliqua 
44 parte mundi, vel ut non fint ecclefiae, quae fociari in unurn po£- 
" fint ; aut quod aliqua cum iis fociari nequeat : non hare eo 
" minus ecckfia eft, vel mutila ideo aliqua fui parte, nedum 
" effentiali. Jam fociari in unum ecclefias, et convenire in Sy- 
** nodos, haud improbant adverfarii, tantum non deponere a Sy- 
" nodis. Et li bene introfpiciamus, depsndentia a Synodis non 
* coiigrue dicitnr. Quippe haud cxiftimandum, vel ab aliis fupe- 
" rioribus, aut ecclefiis, aut Synodis, habere precaiiam poteftatem 
" particularem quamque ecclefiam, vel fe poteftate fua exuere, 
" quando in Synodo coit, illamque ei tradere. Neutiquam. 
" Synodorum vel ufus vel poteftas nihil officere poteft aut debet 
" ecclefiarum particularium libertati et poteftati, eftqne non pri- 
" vatiw, fed cumulative poteftas, ecclefiaque particularis quasi:- 

S3 



210 



Letter XIII. 



The queftion then is, Whether every* congregation, 
with its office-bearers, fhould be fo independent as to be 
completely feparate from every other in point of go- 

" bet manet fubjettuni proprium et adasquatum plena potcftatis 
" ecckfiafticte. Neque Synodi in alias fub ea comprehenfas ecclefias 
" poteftatem ufurpent imperantem, quae dominorum et fuperio- 
" rum eft in inferiores flbi fubditos ; fed ex communi et libero 
w ecclefiarum confenfu in Synodum, hsec poteftatem habet dele- 
" gatam, et auxiliarem vel miniftrantem, ecclefiis voluntaria con- 
" fenfwne, ob necellitatem ordinis et asdificationis, Synodis fe fub- 
" jicientibus. Uti quando in rebufpublicis, vel alibi, ex communi 
" ssqualium confilio collegium erigitur, ad quod communes caufas 
" devolvuntur traclanda? et dermiendae, quod in illas nullam habet 
" poteftatem, nifi earum arbitrio et mutuo confenfu. Quod in 
" circulis vel dioecefibus ecclefiarum, quare hac ifti, illae alteri Sy- 
u nodo fe adjungant, et fubmittant, apparet. Non eft ergo pro- 
" prie haec ecclefiarum ad Synodum relatio, dependentia dicenda, 
" neque commode mihi vocabulo Indepe?identijmi vel denotata 
M controverfia, vel hominum fecla videtur : nam bene dici poteft, 
" ecclefiam particularem efte independentem ab alia, vel a Synodis, 
" ant hominibus; pendere autem a folo Chrifto : Jitbmijfio potius 
44 appellanda fuerat, ut quse venit ex communi confenfu ecclefia- 
44 rum, fe illi ordini, ad sedificationem et bene efie ecclefias, fub- 
u jicientium. A qua nomenclatura ipfos non admodum aiienos 
44 futuros, et moliiore verbo rem non malam facilius perfuafum 
44 ipfis iri confidimus, quum in apologia dicentes audiverimus, fuis 
c * fe fenioribus JubjeBionem praeftare, et Synodi Roterodamenlis fen- 
44 tentis fubjettionem a Roterodamenfi coetu poftulatam, teneri 
44 ecclefiam fubmittere aiiorum judicio et cenfurse, &c. qua* faci- 
" lias mihi videntur concilianda cum fententia noftra, quam cum 
" nomine dependentia? (quo offanduntur) vel poteftatis ufurpatas 
4< a Synodo in ecclefias. Verum quid eft quod adeo offendere 
44 eos poflit, ft Synodorum poteftate ita explicata, et limitata } 
44 aliquam iis tribuamus ? Cenfaram ftringere incontumacem, 
44 pronunciare non-cGmnmnioi.em, quid vel ab excommunicatione 
" adeo diftat, vel ab ufurpata poteftate ? ilia non-communio paf- 
44 five confiderata, quid differt ab excommunicatione ? qui extra 
" fanttorum communionem ponitur, annon idem eft quod excom- 
44 municatus? vel ecclefia fic damnata non-communione, annon 
44 poteftatem aliquam fentit adverfus fe exercitam ? Certe magis 
u videntur verba horrere, quam rem.** 



Letter XIII. 



211 



vernment ?o>0r, while In ordinary matters it is governed 
by its elders, are they refponfible for their conduct, in 
any cafe of error, to the minifters and elders of a number of 
congregations with whom they are aflbciated in the fame 
general body and religious fellowfhip ? and are thefe 
again accountable to a Mill greater affembly, compofed 
of the reprefentatives of a greater number of churches, 
till at laft they arrive at a univerfal meeting or council of 
the reprefentatives of all the churches in the fame reli- 
gious connection, the higheit court in the community ? 

That every congregation ought not thus to be fepa- 
rated, as is the cafe univerfally with Independent churches, 
appears to be man'ft-ft from the following arguments. 

In the I ft place, The vifible profeffing church, while 
comprehending many particular and diflinfh congrega- 
tions, is reprefented in fcripture as conftituting one great 
and beautiful whole, one regular and clofely connected 
fociety. It is compared, for inftance, in Rom. xi. to an 
olive-tree, for while fome of the Jews, the ancient church 
of God, are faid to have been cut off from it on account 
of their unbelief, the Gentiles, who are compared to a 
wild olive, are reprefented as grafFed in among the 
branches which remained, and as admitted with them to 
partake of the juice and fatnefs of the olive-tree. It is 
often alfo exhibited under the emblem of a body, parti- 
cularly in the twelfth chapter of Firft Corinthians. It 13 
frequently diftinguifhed alio by the name of a kingdom, 
as will be evident to any one who examines the thirteenth 
chapter of Matthew. Nor is it merely, as Mr. Glafs 
willies to infmuate, the invtfible church which is thus 
defcribed. Of this church it is plain that there is a part 
in heaven ; but the church here referred to, is one in 
which a variety of offices are inftituted for its fpiritual 
edification, and for converting finners to obedience to 
the truth (1 Cor. xii. Eph. iv. II, 12, 13.), a circum- 
ftance undoubtedly which will not apply to the former. 



212 



Letter XIII. 



Befides, that it cannot merely be true believers, the 
myftical body of Jefus, who are there intended, as is 
afferted by that writer, feems evident from this, that, in 
the firil of thefe paffages, fome of its members are faid 
u to have been cut off' from it on account of their unbe- 
" lief," which cannot be alleged of true believers, unlefs 
the doctrine of the perfeverance of the faints be rejected. 
In the fecond of thefe quotations, the apollle reprefents 
the church of which he fpeaks, as a church which, and 
which alone, had been enriched with fupernatural gifts, 
as prophecy, miracles, the gift of tongues, &c. We 
know however, that thefe gifts were bellowed in the 
primitive times upon many who were not members of 
the invifible church or real believers, for we are told in 
Matth. vii. 22, 23. that in the. day of judgment 
many will fay unto Chrift, " Lord, Lord, have we not 
4i prophefied in thy name ? and in thy name have call 
" out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful 
" works ? and yet that he will profefs unto them, 
£{ I never knew you : depart from me ye that work ini- 
" quity." And, in the third of thefe paffages, it appears 
to be be no lefs undeniable, that it cannot be the regene- 
rated and invifible church which is compared to a king- 
dom, for that kingdom is faid there to refemble a field, 
in which- there were tares as well as wheat, and in which 
thefe tares were to remain till the univerfal harveft, 
at the confummation of all things. In fhort, though 
the higheft fpiritual characters be cccafionally applied to 
this univerfal church, it will not prove that it is only the 
invifible church, confiding folely of believers, and not 
the vifible church, of profefiing Chriftians, which is 
defigned. It is the cuftom of the different apoflles of 
Chrift to defcribe men by what they profefs to be, if there 
be nothing in their conduct which contradicts that pro- 
feflion, rather than from what they really are in the fight 
of God. Paul, we know, addreifes the 'whole of the 



Letter XIII. 213 

members of^he ch arches of Rome, and Corinth', and 
Ephefus, and Theflalonica, as holy, and yet we have 
reafon to fufpect, that, if in the little company of our 
Saviour there was one traitor, all of them had not expe- 
rienced regenerating grace. And Jefus himfelf, when 
addrefiing his difciples, and announcing to them promifes 
of celeftial glory, proceeds upon the fame principle, and 
treats all of them, agreeably to their profefiion, as genuine 
faints, though he knew that one of them was a fon of 
perdition. 11 Behold, we have forfaken all, and followed 
" thee," faid Peter to him (Matth.xix. 27,28.): "And 
u Jefus faid unto them, Verily I fay unto you, that ye 
H which have followed me in the regeneration, when the 
M Son of man (hall fit in the throne of his glory, ye alfo 
u mall fit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
" of Ifrael." Not only fo, but ftrong expreflions are em- 
ployed ( 1 Cor. xii.) to point out the unity of this church, 
and the duties which refult from it to the members at 
large. Nay, we are dire&ly informed in the 25th verfe, 
that God hath appointed all of them throughout the 
world, the loweft as well as the mod eminent, to be 
united in one body for this particular end, that M there 
M mould be no fchifm in the body, but that all the mem- 
" bers of this univerfal church (hould have the fame care 
" one for another." But in what manner is it pofiible 
that thefe reprefentations can be verified upon the Inde- 
pendent plan ? Were all the congregations in the world 
compofed of none but fuch as appeared to be faints, and 
yet were each of thefe difconnecled from the reft in point 
of government, how could thefe defcriptions be fulfilled ? 
Would not every branch in this olive-tree be feparated 
from every other ? Would not every inferior community 
in this kingdom be cut off from the reft ? and would not 
there be as many fupreme independent principalities, 
each of them uncontroulable by any higher fubordinate 
power upon earth, as there were individual focieties? 



Letter XIII. 



Would not every member of this body be torn from the 
others ? and, inftead of there being no fchifm in the 
body, would it not, according to the very conilitution 
of the church, be broken down into ten thoufand inco- 
herent fractions, all of which combined cannot take as 
much care of any particular fociety, to prevent them from 
erring, or exercife as much authority over them, if they 
periift in error, as is exercifed by that fociety over any 
individual of its members ? Since then it feems maniferl, 
that the univerfal profefiing church of Chrlft is reprefent- 
ed in fcripture as a beautiful whole, as intimately con- 
nected as a body, or a kingdom, and in which all the 
congregations are required to take care of one another* 
that no fchifm may take place in it ; and as this would 
be impracticable upon the Independent plan, if each of 
them was completely feparated from the reft, and could 
not exercife over it the leaft authority ; this plan mufl be 
confidered as untenable, becaufe fubverfive of the beau- 
tiful vifible unity and order of the church. 

Is it faid, that all the Chriftian churches throughout 
the world may be viewed as united, becaufe they have 
one faith, one hope, one fpiritual baptifm, one God 
and Father of all, and one bread and cup, of which they 
all participate ? This will indeed demonilrate, that all 
true believers are one myjitcal body, but it is not about 
this union that we are now inquiring. It has been at- 
tempted to be proved, that were all the vifible profefiing 
congregations on earth to adhere to the doctrine and 
difcipline of Chrift, they would conftitute what is deno- 
minated in the language of fcripture, one olive-tree, one 
kingdom, and one body, all the members of which are 
inverted with power to prevent any fchifm in it. Unlefs 
then all thefe churches could be conceived to be connected 
as far as it is poffible in point of government, fo that a 
congregation mould be fubject to the controul of the re- 
prefentatives of a number of congregations, the repre* 



Letter XIII. 215 

fentations oLCcripture mud be nugatory and unmeaning. 
Without this, no union of Chriitian churches could be 
witnefFed ; and though all the congregations on earth 
fhould be agreed in their views of doctrine and worfhip, 
if, as the Independent fyftem fuppofes, they conftituted 
innumerable detached focieties, it feems impofiible to 
conceive how, in any view, they could be denominated 
one vifible church. 

It is true, that this one univerfal church has never yet 
exifted, but it does not follow that the plan which tends 
to form it, is either ufelefs or improper. The nonexift- 
ence of this church arifes from the corruptions and pre- 
judices of men ; but fuppoling it to exift, the fyftem of 
Independency would entirely deflroy its unity and con- 
fidence. Befides, as far as the truth is difTeminated and 
embraced, it appears required by the authority or at 
leaft by the reprefentations of fcripture, that all who are 
united in religious principle mould connect themfelves 
tinder the fame government, and form one -great and 
general church. It is not enough to afTert, as Glafe has 
done, that all congregations are no more bound to be 
fubject to one great and general government, than to 
meet in one great affembly to partake of the Lords fup- 
per. The latter, from the nature of things, is impofiible, 
but experience has demonstrated the poffibility of the 
former. Though all the congregations in Holland, 
France, Switzerland, or Scotland, could not alTemble 
in one place to eat the fupper, we know that the churches, 
in each of thefe countries, have been adminiflered by a 
common government, while thefe congregations indivi- 
dually have alfo been governed by their particular rulers. 
In like manner, though the whole nation of Ifrael could 
not meet together to eat the paffover, they were go- 
verned by a common council of feventy elders, while, in 
their particular diftrifts, they were alfo fubject to in- 
ferior rulers* 



216 Letter XIII. 

It is difficult to fay what might, or might not, be 
practicable, if the church were abfolutely univerfal. As 
all the nations in the world conftitute one great political 
government to which every individual nation is fubje6fc, 
it is by no means impoffible but there might be a gene- 
ral ecclefiaftical government, compofed of the reprefenta- 
tives of the churches in every country, to which each of 
thefe churches fnould be fubject. Such a general politi- 
cal government does not indeed ostenfibly exift, but it is 
always underftood to exift virtually, and has ever been 
confidered as the fafeguard of thofe general rights and 
laws which are called the rights and laws of nature and 
nations. When the energies of this government are at 
any time exerted, it may be faid to affume a vifible 
form : and it is this which conftitutes and preferves the 
balance of power among nations. Why then might not 
a fimilar government exift in religion if the church were 
to become univerfal, to which the collected church in 
every particular country mould be fubordinate. 

Nor does it follow, becaufe it is difficult to conceive 
how fuch a government could exift even though there 
were a univerfal church, that, while it is not univerfal, 
the different congregations in a particular country, who 
are united in religious fentimenf, ought not to be fub- 
jecl: to one general government. Though all the nations, 
notwithstanding their fubjection to a general virtual go- 
vernment, are not fubjecl: to it in a permanent ostenfible form, 
would any one conclude from this, as Independents do 
refpedting the church, that each nation fhould not pofTefs 
within itfelf a certain fixed and general political govern- 
ment, or that there fhould be no rulers in any country 
fuperior to the magiftrates of a particular town or burgh ; 
that every fuch town fhould be a diftincl and totally in- 
dependent government; and that every individual, connect- 
ed with this town, fhould be a virtual as well as a titular 
governor ? What ought we to do then, but rejeft the 



Letter XIII. 217 

Independent plan, which is fo plainly fubverfive of the uni- 
ty of the church, and conclude in general, that while every 
congregation mould be governed by its diftinct and fepa- 
parate rulers, there fhould be fuperior courts, to which 
all the congregations in the fame connection are bound 
to be fubjec"t.. 

It may be faid, indeed, that in political governments 
men are affociated merely for the purpofe of defence 
againft foreign enemies. This, however, is but one end 
of their union ; for the civil rights and privileges of every 
individual in the nation are alfo to be protected from 
being invaded. To accomplifh this, they learn from ex- 
perience that it would be dangerous in the extreme to 
commit to the rulers of every town or village a fupreme 
and final juridical power, without the pofiibility of appeal 
to a higher court ; and that confequently a gradation of 
courts is moft expedient and necefTary. 

Still it will be affirmed, that though this arrangement 
is proper in political matters, it is not necefTary or pro- 
per in the church of Chrifi, which is exprefsly declared 
to be a kingdom not of this world. It does not how- 
ever follow from this particular expreffion, that there 
ought to be a total difference, in every inftance, between 
the fpiritual and the political kingdom. If it did, then, 
becaufe order and government exift in politics, they 
ought not to exift in religion, but anarchy and diforder be 
allowed to prevail, a conclufion which few Independents 
would be difpofed to adopt. If then the kingdom of 
Chrift, as it exifts in the vifible general church, does not 
neceffarily differ, in every point, from political king- 
doms, the queftion naturally occurs, Are thefe fome of 
the inftances in which this fimilarity may take place ; that 
every member is not to be admitted to judge and vote 
on every propofal of the rulers in a particular church, as 
every man in a city is not permitted to judge and vote 
on every meafure of the magiftrate ; and that it would be 

T 



2l8 



Letter XIIL 



improper for every congregation to poffefs an indepeR* 
dent ecclefiaftical government, accountable to no higher 
court, as it would be improper and dangerous that every 
town mould have a political government independent of 
any fupcrior i 

In determining this queftion, it feems fair and reafon- 
able to appeal not only to fcripture but to experience. If 
then, on the authority of experience, it appears, that 
men in every age have been fo unqualified to decide on 
political queftions, that it has been accounted at once 
dangerous and prepofterous to fubmit every meafure of 
the governors of a city to the decifion of the citizens 
before it is adopted, it feems equally juft to maintain 
that in a congregation, where the fubje&s of difcuffion 
are unqueftionably more interefting, and where the mem- 
bers at large are perhaps as really unqualified to decide, 
it muft be no lefs prepofterous to fubjecl: every meafure 
of government to the review of the people before it be 
put in execution. And if it has alfo been accounted 
prejudicial to the civil interefts of men, to conftitute 
every town in a kingdom an independent principality, 
uncontroulable by any higher juridical court, may we 
not legitimately infer that a fimilar independency, given to 
a particular congregation, would be equally prejudicial to 
the religious interefts of men ? Unlefs then it can be 
proved, that Chriftians at large are better fitted to be 
ccclefiaftical governors than civil judges ; or that a par- 
ticular congregation is lefs liable to err than the gover- 
nor or magiftrates of a city ; or that, though they may 
err as frequently, the confequences of their improper 
decifions, with regard to religion, are of lefs importance 
than thofe which arife from political errors ; the reafon- 
ing feems fair and the conclufion unavoidable, even 
though we grant the favourite pofition of Independents, 
that the church, or kingdom of Chrift, is not of this 
world. 



Letter XIII. 



219 



I know it has been affirmed by Glafs, that when the 
profeffing church of Chrift is reprefented in fcripture as 
cne, a particular congregation only is intended, and that 
the unity even of the church univerfal may be afcribed 
to this congregation, becaufe it is an image of the whole 
catholic church. In proof of this he tells us, that 
f* the apoftle Paul, in fome parages, accommodates his 
M do&rine of the unity of the holy catholic church, the 
" myftical body of Chrift, unto a vifible church, a con- 
" gregation of faints, wherein that catholic body is (hewed 
" forth ; and exhorts the members, in their feveral ftations, 
" to walk according to it, and (hew it forth : Eph. ii. 22. 
" Rom. xii. 6. — ic. Eph. iv. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. xii. 27. *" 
In fome even of thefe paffages, however, it feems plain 
that it is the univerfal vifible church, and not merely a 
particular congregation, to which unity is attributed. 
Thus, in Rom. xii. 6. bfc. the apoftle not only fpeaks 
in general terms of the offices in the church, but includes 
himfelf, though he had never yet been at Rome, and 
was not a member of the particular church there. Befides, 
even Glafs allows, that, in ver. 4, 5. he fpeaks of the 
univerfal church ; confeqnently, fince it is his defign, 
ver. 3. to inculcate the exercife of humility on all 
Chriftians, and efpecially the office-bearers of the church 
(and to enforce it, he introduces a ftriking and beautiful 
allufion to the relation in which all believers ftand to each 
other as members of the general or univerfal church), is it 
not evident that his inference, in ver. 6. relates to the 
univerfal church alone, which he there reprefents as one. 
That it was this church alone which he intended in 
1 Cor. xii. is proved from what is ftated in the 28th 
verfe. It was certainly not merely in a fingle congrega- 
tion at Corinth, but in the univerfal profeffing vifible 
church, that " God had fet fome, firft, apoftles f fecon- 



* Glafs's Works, vol. i. p. 379. 
T/2 



■220 



Letter XIII. 



" darily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers," EsV. That it is 
the fame univerfal church, of the unity of which he 
fpeaks, Eph. iv. i, 2, 3. is no lefs clear from the follow- 
ing context. In* fhort, allowing that, in fome occafwnal 
paffages, particular churches, as that of Ephefus (Eph. 
ii. 22.), are reprefented to us as conftituting one church, 
it will not prove that, in other paffages, the univerfal pro- 
feffing church is not as exprefsly pointed out as confti- 
tuting alfo one church. That it is fo defcribed we have 
already attempted in fome meafure to demonftrate, and, 
were it neceffary, it might be eftablifhed from other paf- 
fages alfo. At prefent we (hall only farther remark, that 
In this light it feems to be very pointedly exhibited in 
the account of the millennial church : Rev. xxi. This 
church certainly cannot mean the invifible church, for 
we are informed, ver. 24. that the kings of the earth 
fnall bring their glory and honour into it ; and in ver. 26. 
that they mould bring into it alfo the glory and honour 
of the nations. And that it cannot fignify a fingle con- 
gregation is no lefs plain, for nations are reprefented, 
ver. 24. as walking in the light of it, and kings of dif- 
ferent countries as members of it, which certainly will 
not apply to any fingle congregation. It can only then 
be the univerfal vifible church ; yet it is defcribed as con- 
ftituting one great and beautiful whole, for it is pointed 
out to us under the emblem of a city, and a perfon. It is 
evident then, that even allowing that unity is fometimes 
afcribed to a particular congregation in the facred volume, 
it is no lefs certainly attributed to the univerfal church. 
And if the unity of a particular congregation would be 
deftroyed by completely feparating the members from 
-each other, and rendering them independent of the au- 
thority of the whole, the unity of the univerfal church 
mud be no lefs deftroyed by feparating every particular 
congregation which compofes this churchy and making 



Letter XIII. 



221 



it independent of the controul of the reft, In any cafe of 
error, in j^oint of government. 

To conclude, is it objected, that though unity belongs 
to the unlverfal church as well as to a particular congre- 
gation, yet it is the latter which is always meant when 
unity is afcribed to the vifible profeffing church ; and that 
this may well be affirmed even of a particular congrega- 
tion, becaufe it is an image of the univerfal church of 
Chrift, fo that, upon perceiving it, we perceive a repre- 
fentation of this whole catholic fociety ? It is replied, 
that fince every individual faint, or believer, is reprefent- 
ed in fcripture as made at laft, by the grace of God, a per- 
feci: man, and is an image of the whole myftical body of 
Chrift, upon the fame principle it might be affirmed, 
that when Chrift's myftical body alfo is denominated by 
Paul (Eph. iv. 13,) a perfect man, it is only a Jingle 
Chrtflian which is there intended by him. And lince 
every particular believer, when fan&ified by the grace of 
God, becomes to him a fpiritual temple, and is a delightful 
image of tiie whole univerfal church, which is diftin- 
guifhed alfo by that name, upon the fame principle it 
might be argued, that when the univerfal church, as in 
Eph. ii. 21. is reprefented as a temple, it is only 
an individual Chrifiian which is defigned by the apoiile, 
But if Independents themfelves would confider it as un- 
fair, were we to maintain that when the univerfal mvfti- 
cal church is defcribed in fcripture as a perfect man, and 
a fpiritual temple, individual believers alone are intended, 
becaufe they are images of the former, and are called 
alfo by thefe names, muft it not be equally unfair and 
unreafonable in them, to affert that though the univerfal 
vifible church is pointed out in fcripture as conftituting 
one regular and connected whole, it is only a particular 
congregation which is defigned, becaufe unity alfo is 
fometimes attributed to fuch congregations, and becaufe, 
T 3 



222 Letter XIII. 

when we behold the latter, we contemplate an image and 
emblem of the former ? 

How, moreover, even upon the principle of this ob- 
jection, can a particular congregation be a reprefentation 
of the univerfal vifible church, if that church is not 
united under one common government ? The fociety 
which is the image of the other in miniature is unquef- 
tionably connefttd under fuch a government, and by this 
alone is conftituted a church. But how can it be a 
public and vifible emblem of this greater fociety, if the 
conftituent parts of the latter are not united under fuch 
an admin iftration, and have not even the connection 
which fubfifts among the different members of fuch a 
congregation ? 



LETTER XIV. 

SIR, 

Having, in the preceding Letter, endeavoured to efta- 
blifh from the reprefentations of fcripture, that fuch a 
unity ought to exifi among Chriftian congregations as is 
inconfiftent with the plan of Independent churches, 1 
fhall now confirm this pofition by fhewing, 

2dly, That if every congregation is made fo indepen- 
dent of every other, that corruptions and improprieties 
may be admitted in them without being accountable to 
any fuperior court on earth, much greater opportunity 
mull exift for the introduction of error, and tyranny, 
than on the Prefbyterian fyftem. 

That the errors or corruptions of a congregation are 
much more prejudicial to the interefts of religion in the 
world than thofe of individuals does not admit of dif- 
pute. In proportion therefore to their magnitude and 
tendency ought to be the ftrength and efficacy of the 
means of preventing or fuppreffing them. On the Inde- 



Letter XIV. 22J 

pendent plan however, if a congregation depart front 
purity of faith or worfhip, the fame means cannot be 
applied toVeclaim it, as can be employed by its rulers to 
reclaim or punifh the corruptions of its individual mem- 
bers. In the latter cafe, they can be admonifhed, re- 
buked, and, if they perfift in their errors, excommu- 
nicated by the rulers. But no fuch power can be exer- 
cifed over a whole congregation, nor any fuch punifh- 
ment inflicted on it, notwithftanding the greater enormi- 
ty and more baneful tendency of its errors. Nay, even 
though a number of congregations mould be feduced cr 
mifled by their example, the contagion muft remain un- 
controlled by either cenfure or punifhment : and thus 
our Lord, who has appointed the exercife of difcipline 
towards offending individuals, has allowed congregations 
to become corrupt without the poffibility of recover^ 
ing them. 

In Prefbytery, on the contrary, a congregation is as 
much under the discipline of its fuperior court as the 
members are under that of its particular rulers : and even 
though all the congregations under the review of a Pref- 
bytery fhould err, they may be punifhed by a Synod ; 
which, on falling into fimilar errors with the inferior judi- 
catories, may be punilhed by the fupreme court. While 
Independency therefore provides for the punifhment of 
the leaft faults, or thofe of members, it overlooks ths 
moll pernicious and more important faults, the herefies 
and corruptions which may take place in congregations- : 
by confequence, as inattention to the greatejl crimes is one 
of the moft radical and important defects in any govern- 
ment, the principles of Independency muft be prejudicial 
to the general interefts of religion. 

Do you fay, that congregations may admonifli one 
another when they fall into error, and endeavour to reclaim 
them ? You allow however, that unlefs there be a power 
of puniftung as well as of admoniflung an offending mem- 



224 



Letter XIV, 



ber, the evils which he may introduce can neither be 
prevented nor removed. On what principle, then, can 
you refufe a fimiiar power to be neceflary for the preven- 
tion or fupprefnon of offences committed by a whole 
congregation ? In reply to this it is not fufficient to fay 
with Glafs, that though a congregation is not fubjecr. to 
the eccieiiaftical cenfures of any external court, fpiritual 
judgments may be inflicted on it by God ; for thefe may 
defcend on the individual members of a congregation 
alio, yet the authority of difcipline is confidered as elTen- 
tial to the government of every congregation. Or is it 
faid, that a corrupt congregation, though not fubjecr. to 
the judgment of men, will finally be judged at the tri- 
bunal of Chrift. The fame anfwer is fatisfa&ory— that 
the fame is the accountablenefs, and the fame will be the 
judgment, of every individual who perfifts in his fin. 
Yet even Independents admit the neceffity of difcipline in 
the cafe of individuals : Can left then, it is dill demanded, 
be necefTary to prevent error and corruption in a whole 
congregation than in the cafe of an individual ? Un- 
doubtedly not ! Independency, therefore, mutt be more 
favourable to the introduction of evils than Prefbytery is, 
which, to every check which Independency poffeffes, 
adds the accountablenefs of every congregation to its fu- 
perior court, and the review of all decifions, in inferior 
judicatories, by a ftill higher and fupreme council. 

In oppofition to this you however remark, p. 53. 
u So far do we conceive Prefijyterian government from 
*' being an arrangement conducive to general utility, 
u that it appears quite the reverie. It tends to propa- 
" gate corruption, and to prevent reform. Suppofe a 
u church, on the Prefoyterian model, at firft compara- 
" tively pure (as it is generally fuppofed, perhaps in 

fome cafes juftly, that churches in their early days 
M are), but by degrees corruption creeps into it. As 
u foon as that corruption infects the majority, from the 



Letter XIV. 



'< power which Prefbytery gives them over the reft, they 
" can fork their purer brethren, however reluctantly, 
«« to affimilate themfelves to their corrupt ftandard. If, 
" for example, in a Preibytery, one congregation after 
" another begins to lofe fight of Chriftian difcipline ; 
" whenever the greater part of that Prefbytery does fo, 
" the reft, however much difpofed, can no longer main- 
" tain it. If an individual, in one of thefe purer congre- 
" gations, feel himfelf aggrieved, an appeal to the ma- 
" jority fecures him redrefs. The fyftem then tends to 
u drag down thofe who would act on Chriftian principles 
* c to a conformity to fuch as have departed from them, 
" Again, it equally tends to prevent reform. If, amidft 
u general corruption, a fpirit of reform fhould appear in 
" a fingle congregation, the authority of the reft: is a 
<c bar in its way. This is, we believe, in fome cafes 
€t feverely felt. Suppofe a minifter in the eftablifhed 
" church (and in fome inftances, we truft, it is not 
" merely matter of fuppofition), in the progrefs of his 
u inquiries respecting Chriftian difcipline, is convinced 
" that it is very partially, if at all maintained in his 
" congregation, admitting even that a majority of his 
" people held the fame fentiments ; is it not obvious, 
" that unlefs the Prefbytery in general were of a fimilar 
" opinion, any attempt at reform in that congregation 
" would prove nugatory and vain. The fame incon- 
" venience does not attend Independent churches. We 
" are far from insinuating that any form of church- 
" government prefents an effectual bar to that corruption 
" to which all inftitutions, conducted by depraved and 
tc fallible men, are liable ; but admitting among Inde- 
u pendent churches the mod general departure from 
M Chriftian principles to prevail, if, in the midft of this, 
" an individual congregation is led to ftudy greater 
u purity, the fyftem at leaft prefents no external obftacle 
" to counteract it." 



226 



Letter XIV. 



On this objection, fo formidable in your apprehenfion, 
I obferve in general, that while you point out as clearly 
as poflible what you imagine to be the tendency of the 
Prefbyterian fyfiem to propagate corruption and prevent 
reform, you forget to {hew that Independency is free 
from a fimilar tendency. Even on the principles of the 
reafoning which you adopt, it appears to be much more 
liable to this objection than Prefbytery. Suppofe, for 
initance, a congregation, in either of thefe connections, 
juft beginning to fwerve from purity of faith and worfhip, 
and confider the tendency of each of thefe fyilems to 
prevent or reform them. Independency has not a fingle 
court which can call it to account, cenfure or punifh it : 
Prefbytery has fuperior courts, to whofe tribunal it is 
amenable, and which can cenfure or punifh it with as 
much power as an Independent congregation can any of 
its offending members. Nay, fuppofe this congregation 
to extend its corruption to ten or twenty churches around 
it, the fame want of authority and power to check the 
progrefs of this corruption exifts. But in Prefbytery, 
though twenty congregations mould be tainted with 
error, there are higher courts, which can endeavour to 
reform them, not only by admonition and perfualion, but 
by fuperadding the fame ecclefiaftical cenfurea which 
Independents inflict on the individuals in a particular con- 
gregation who perfift; in error. In a word, in a country 
where there were 1600 Independent churches, though 
almoft the one half of them mould fall into error, and 
obftinately perfift in it, for any power that the remaining 
majority pofTefs, they mutt continue unpunifhed ; corrup- 
tion muft be allowed to extend without controul : they 
muft be left to themfelves, either to reform, or to ad- 
vance in corruption. In a Prefbyterian church however, 
though as many mould become corrupt, the faithful ma- 
jority can exercife the difcipline over them with which 
they are invefted ; employ the fame efficacious means for 



Letter XIV. 227 

their reformation which you acknowledge Chrift has 
appointed to be ufed by a congregation towards its mem- 
bers ; and if they mould refill thefe means, finally pro- 
nounce on them the fame fentence to which you alfo 
allow individuals are txpofed. I am truly aftonimed then, 
that while fuch is the nature of Prefbytery, when admi- 
niftered according to its original defign and by faithful 
men, that it is as much fitted to exclude corruption from 
the moft extenfive church, or to reform it, as the go- 
vernment eftablifhed in your conne&ion is to prevent the 
corruption of a particular individual, you mould endea- 
vour to reprefent Prefbytery as fo favourable to error, and 
fo inimical to reform. Nor am I lefs furprifed, when you 
attempt to infinuate that this charge does not ftrike with 
its utmofl force againft Independency— a fyftem which 
gives no authority except to a {ingle congregation over 
its own members ; under which, a hundred congregations 
may embrace the moft pernicious opinions, and perfift in 
them without cenfure and without punifhment. 

You indeed afk (p. 54.), " How does Prefbytery tend 
€t to prevent corruption ? Not by admonition and per- 
si fuafion. Thefe, indeed, it does not exclude, but this is 
" a kind of influence which is acknowledged in its fulleft 
" latitude by Independent churches ; and therefore re- 
" fpe&ing the propriety of adopting it there is no dif- 
" pute. The ftern tone of authority, then, is the only 
u method of preventing corruption by which Prefbytery 
" is diftinguiihed. It indeed, like other modes of com- 
" pulfion, may produce hypocrify, but it can never pro- 
" mote fpiritual obedience. It was never a kind of in- 
" fluence fanctioned by Him who reigns over a willing 
" people.'' 

Prefbyterian courts however, as was already proved, 
while they employ authority, ufe alfo admonition and 
perfuafion. Nor is their authority more ftern or com- 
pulfatory than that which is exercifed by the office-bearers 



22$ 



Letter XIV. 



and members of an Independent congregation over an of- 
fending brother. Do not the governors of fuch a con- 
gregation add to the means of advice and perfuafion a 
higher act of authority, by inflicting on him a mod aw- 
ful punifhment, if he remain incorrigibly obftinate ? And 
is the authority of a Prefbyterian court, over an offending 
congregation, greater than this, or more incompatible 
with the ufe of perfuafion and advice ? Is it more calcu- 
lated to produce hypocrify, as you are fo charitable as to 
allege ? Is it more inconliftent with the influence which 
is fanctioned by Him who reigns over a willing people ? 
Or on what principle can you explain the extraordinary 
difficulty attending the Independent fyftem, that while 
a power to puniih a particular member is allowed to be 
neceffary for preferving the purity of the congregation 
to which he belongs, a limilar power is denied to a fu- 
perior court, and a whole congregation fuffered to em- 
brace the moft dangerous opinions without the poflibi- 
lity of being cenfured or punifhed ? 

You will however probably fay, that as foon as the 
majority in a Prefbyterian connection become corrupt, 
all the evils which you defcribe are found to be realized. 
It is true indeed, that, when perverted from its original 
defign, like many other things which in themfelves are 
good, Prefbytery may produce the worft of confequences ; 
and it is even granted, that as, when properly and con- 
fcientioufly adminiftered, it is productive of greater 
good than Independency, when corrupted and mifap- 
plied, it may, in one view, be attended with greater evils. 
The queftion however, in the prefent difcuffion, certainly 
is, not what fyftem, when perverted from its original end, 
is calculated to produce the kajl evi/, but what fyftem, 
when conducted according to its defign, is calculated to 
produce the greateft good ? Your objection is therefore 
completely irrelevant, becaufe it refts on a miftake about 
the point in difpute, as well as on a principle long ex- 



Letter. XIV. 229 

ploded by^fcripture, philofophy, and common fenfe, that 
the abufe of a thing is a valid argument againjl its utility. 

By adopting this principle, you invalidate the autho- 
rity of the moft important inftitutions, and fet afide 
many in which you yourfelf firmly believe. On this 
ground, for inftance, as a Jlanding minijlry, when profli- 
tuted to the purpofes of error and worldlinefs, is 
much more fitted to diffeminate corruption and pre- 
vent reform than private injlru&ion is, it mould be laid 
afide ; and we ought to believe, with a certain feet ox 
levellers, that minifters of the gofpel are no longer necef- 
fary, but every Chriftian himfelf mould teach his neigh- 
bour, and every Chriftian his brother, to know the Lord. 
On the fame ground alfo, fmce civil government, when 
adminiftered by rulers who are unfaithful, is no lefs fit- 
ted, by its fubordination of courts, to propagate rnofl: 
extenfively every fpecies of corruption, and to prefent an 
unfurmountable obftacle to reform, it ought to be laid 
afide ; and all the nations of men, correcting thofe errors 
into which, by your reafoaing, they have in every age 
fallen, mould at once abolifh their civil courts of review, 
break down their kingdoms into a countlefs multitude of 
little principalities, and make each of them entirely in- 
dependent of the reft. Without this you may allege, 
againft the prefent conftitution of almoft every nation on 
earth, as you do againft Prefbytery, that as foon as cor- 
ruption infects the majority in the fuperior courts, from 
the power with which they are invefted over the reft, 
they can force their purer brethren, however reluctantly, 
to aflimilate themfelves to their corrupt ftandard. If, for 
example, in a kingdom, one city after another, and one 
ruler after another, begin to lofe fight of political juftice ; 
whenever the greater part of the rulers in the fuperior 
courts of the kingdom does fo, the reft, however much 
difpofed, can no longer maintain it. If a degenerate 
individual, in one of the purer cities, feel himftlf ag- 

U 



Letter XIV. 



grieved by the decifion of its rulers, an appeal to the 
majority, in the fuperior courts, fecures the immediate 
reverfal of their fentence. This fyftem, then, tends to 
drag down thofe who would act on the principles of 
equity to a conformity to fuch as have departed from 
them. Again, it equally tends to prevent reform. If, 
amidft general political corruption in a kingdom, a fpirit 
of reform mould appear in the governors of a fingle city, 
the authority of the reft is a bar in its way. This, we 
believe, in fuch cafes, would be feverely felt. Suppofe the 
governors of fome of thefe cities (and in fome inftances, 
we truft, even in corrupt kingdoms, it is not merely 
matter of fuppofition), in the progrefs of their inquiries 
refpecting political juftice, are convinced that it is very 
partially, if at all maintained in their cities — admitting 
that even a majority of the people held the fame fenti- 
ments ; is it not obvious, that unlefs the fuperior courts 
in general were of a fimilar opinion, any attempt at re- 
formation, in any of thefe cities, would prove nugatory 
and vain. The fame inconvenience would not follow, 
were every kingdom upon earth, however, fplit down into 
as many independent political focieties as there were 
cities, or towns, or villages in it. We are far from in- 
finuating that any form of political government prefents 
an effectual bar to that corruption to which all inftitu- 
tions, conducted by depraved and fallible men, are liable ; 
but admitting among thefe independent political focieties 
the mod general departure from the principles of juftice 
and integrity to prevail, if, in the midft of this, an indi- 
vidual village, or town, or city, is led to ftudy greater 
rectitude, the fyftem at leaft prefents no external obftacle 
to counteract it. If then you would not maintain that 
civil government, in every form almoft in which it at pre- 
fent exifts in the world, is abfurd and pernicious, becaufe, 
when its adminiftrators are depraved, it is capable, as ex- 
tenfively as Prefbytery itfelf, by its courts of review, to 



Letter XIV. 



propagate ^orruption and prevent reform, on what prin- 
ciple, I demand, can you affert that Prefbytery, with its 
courts of review, is dangerous and reprehenfible, be- 
caufe, when the majority of its adminiftrators may differ 
from you in their views of doctrine and their ideas 
of difcfpline, they have it in their power to propagate 
what you would diftinguifh by the name of corruption, 
and prevent reform ? And if, notwithstanding the evils 
which may be occafioned by a perverted ufe of the former, 
you would not contend that every town or village in our 
native country, and even in every country, mould be 
converted into an Independent political government, on 
what grounds can you conclude, from the poffible evils 
which may refult from the perverted ufe of the latter, 
efpecially as liberty of feparation is acknowledged by it, 
that the church at large mould be broken down into in- 
dependent religious focieties, and that there mould be as 
many independent ecclefiajllcal governments as there are in- 
dividual congregations on the face of the earth ? 

The great object of inquiry in our examination of 
different forms of government, facred or civil, mould un- 
doubtedly be, which of them, when acted upon accord- 
ing to its end, is beft fitted to prevent the entrance of cor- 
ruption among focieties as well as individuals ; not, 
which of them is mo ft calculated, when mif applied from 
that end> and conducted by men whofe principles and 
practice may appear to us to be wrong, to be pro- 
ductive of the greatejl evil? Examining then, by this 
ftandard, the oppofite fchemes of Prefbytery and Inde- 
pendency, I think it is manifeft from the preceding re- 
marks, that the preference is certainly due to the former. 
If confcientioufly managed, by men who experience the 
influence of the gofpel, the rulers of each of its individual 
congregations can exercife towards all as much ftrictnefs 
of difcipline as the moil zealous governors of any Inde- 
pendent fociety can exercife towards their members, 

U2 



2$2 



Letter XIV. 



And, at the fame time, while Independency has not a 
fingle court which can judge or punifh a whole erring 
songregation, but allows them, though they mould pro- 
ceed to the moft dreadful extremes of error or depravity, 
to pafs uncenfured by any ecclefiaftical tribunal, Pref- 
bytery has courts which can inflift upon any obftinate 
offending congregation, or even a hundred fuch congre- 
gations, the fame falutary punifhment, to reclaim and 
reform them, which Independents can inflict upon any- 
individual of their members. And, upon the whole, 
while Independency, as was already demonftrated in the 
fecond of thefe Letters, has not a fingle court which can 
procure redrefs to any of its members, though he be 
treated with the utmojl cruelty and tyranny by any of its 
congregations, Prefbytery, by its courts, when they are 
conducted upon the principles of equity and fidelity, pre- 
sents to the pooreft individual in a congregation a mean 
of immediate and complete fatisfa&ion, even for the leqft 
a8 of injujllce by a Seffion, or Prefbytery, or a whole 
Synod. From thefe views, then, I ftill maintain that the 
Prefbyterian fyftem ought unqueft ion ably to be preferred 
to that of Independency, and that the latter fhould be 
fet afide as inimical to the dearefl rights and privileges of 
Chriftians as individuals, as well as the united interefts of 
the whole church of God. 

In the 3d place, It is a principle revealed in fcripture, 
and a principle acknowledged by you as well as many In- 
dependents, that minijlers alone are authorized to ordain. 
Now, if an Independent congregation be deftitute of 
paftors, and if, after they are chofen by the people, 
agreeably to fcripture and the uniform practice of your 
fifter-churches, minifters be brought from other congre- 
gations to ordain them to their charge, is not this a 
praclical renunciation of that firft principle of Indepen- 
dency which we are now examining, and a fubje&ing the 
congregation over which they are placed, together with 



Letter XIV. 233 

the paftors^ to the performance of a moft important aft 
of government by the minifters of churches entirely dif- 
ferent ? Is not this confefTedly an aft of adminiftration 
as interefting as any which is performed even among In- 
dependents, and yet is it not discharged to any congre- 
gation which folicits it, by perfons who are neither mi- 
nifters nor members of that congregation ? Belides, does 
it not involve in it the exercife of all inferior branches of 
authority ? Is it not plain that if it is their province to 
fet apart thefe members of this other congregation to the 
work of the miniftry, it is their province alfo to examine 
them as to their fitnefs to be invefted with that office, 
for, without this, will it not follow that if a congrega- 
tion has erred in its choice of paftors, ordination by the 
former will only tend to confirm their error, and admit 
thofe who are totally unqualified to this important func- 
tion ? And does not the fcripture declare, that when 
candidates for the miniftry are ordained by minifters, 
hands are not fuddenly to be laid upon them ; that they 
muft be fatisned as to their. qualifications, and muft per- 
fonally be convinced chat they are faithful men, able to 
teach others the doftrines of the gofpel ? But if every 
pallor of fuch a congregation muft fubmit to the Scru- 
tiny of the paftors and office-bearers of other congrega- 
tions before he is ordained, even after he has been chofen by 
the 'vote of the people, is not this recognifing the right of 
thefe paftors to exercife a very important aft of authority 
over him and the congregation ? Is it not inverting them 
with all the power of a court of review, while yet they 
are unwilling to grant them the name? And is it not 
obvious, that if the paftors alone of other congregations 
can ordain a perfon to the work of the miniftry in a 
congregation which is totally deftitute of paftors, it is to 
them alone that he can be amenable for any aft of mal- 
adminiftration which he may be permitted to commit ; 
and it is by them alone that he can be depofed, if he 

u 3 



234 



Letter XIV. 



walk unworthily of his facred fun&ion. In fine, though 
it fhould not be admitted by fome Independents, that a 
meeting of the minifters of other churches is necejfary for 
the ordination of the paftor or minifter of a particular 
congregation, yet if it be granted, with others of them, 
to be lawful aud defirable, it feems undeniably to follow, 
in oppofition to a favourite principle of Independency, 
that ordination is either not an a6l of government, or 
that it is lawful and defirable even among Independents, 
that a congregation, in many inftances, mould be fubject 
to one of the higheft afts of power that can be exercifed by 
the minifters and office-bearers of other congregations ? 
Since then it appears to be evident from the facred volume, 
that minifters alone are authorized to ordain *, and fince it 

* That minifters alone can ordain minifters, was attempted to 
be proved in a former Letter. In addition to the arguments 
which were then ftated, it was neglected to be mentioned that 
conflderable ftrefs has been laid by fome, for the confirmation of 
this fentiment, upon the appointment of Paul, and his fellow- 
labourer Barnabas, to an important miffion, as related in th-s 
thirteenth chapter of the Acts. Even admitting it has been 
faid, with fome advocates for lay-preaching, that it is not their 
ordination to the office of the minifjtay, but fimply their being fet 
apart to a particular work, which is there referred to, yet as it is 
evident that they were thus fet apart by minifters of the gofpel, 
and them alone (compare ver. I. and 3.), the argument which is 
prefented by it, for the right of minifters alone to ordain, muft be 
doubly ftronger. If minifters alone can fet apart thofe who are 
already ordained to a particular work, much more muft it be ma- 
nifeft that they alone can perform this higher work, and inveft 
them with their office. At any rate, it feems plain that the ob- 
fervation of Mr. Ewing, which has been reprefented by fome as 
completely invalidating any fuch conciufion from this paftage, is 
unjufl and contradictory. " It is remarkable,'' fays he, p. 6. of 
his Remarks upon a Sermon publifhed by Mr. Dick, " that where- 
" ever ordination, by the inftrumentaiity of man, is fpoken of, 
" the words are quite different from that which is ufed in the 
* text before us ; whereas when any word at all related to the 
w one in the text occurs, in the fenfe of ordination, it uniformly 



Letter XIV. 235 

A 

is admitted by many of our modern Independents, that It 
is either lawful or necejfary that they alone mould perform 
this a&, it feems to be an unavoidable confequence, if they 
would be confident either with fcripture or with them- 
felves, that each of their congregations is not to be inde- 
pendent in every inflance, but that, in many cafes, it is either 
lawful or necejfary that it mould be fubjecl to one of the 
higheft a6ts of authority by the minifters and office- 
bearers of other churches. 

In the 4th place, If the paftors of a particular con- 
gregation become heretical or immoral, and perfift in 
thefe evils, in another point of light, even upon Indepen- 
dent principles, a court of review appears neceffary to 
judge them. The members of the congregation, accord- 
ing to the acknowledged tenets of all Independents, are 
not entitled in the firft inftance to judge, but are merely 
allowed to acquiefce and corfeni to the propofals of their 
office-bearers. But if not a Jingle office-bearer is left in 
the congregation who retains his authority, how can the 
members take cognizance of their paftors, fince it is their 

" figuifies the ordination or fovereign appointment of God." Are 
we not exprefsly told in the beginning of this chapter, that while 
" certain prophets and teachers miniftered to the Lord, and faft- 
" ed, the Holy Ghoft faid to them, Separate me Barnabas and 
" Paul, for the work whereunto I have called them ?" And 
would not any unprejudiced perfon, who looked no farther than 
the prefent pajfage 9 fuppofe, upon the firft perufal of thefe verfes, 
that it was an appointment, or feparation, by men, and not by 
God, which was here intended by this expreflion ? If Mr. E wing's 
very bold and unqualified affertion however, refpecting the repa- 
ration which is here mentioned, even though but to a particular 
\nifTion, be admitted to be juft, the following muft be the mean- 
ing of the infpired hiftorian : " While thefe prophets and teachers 
" miniftered and fafted, the Holy Ghoft appeared to them, and 
*' commanded himfelf to feparate to himfelf Barnabas and Paul" — 
a fuppofition at once the moll: abfurd and ridiculous, and no lefs 
inconfiftent with the character of Luke as a man of fenfe, than 
with his more extraordinary endowments as an apoftle. 



236 Letter XIV. 

province only to exprefs their concurrence in the propofals 
of their office-bearers, and not nominally themfelves to 
aft as judges > Is it faid, that they may withdraw from 
the miniftration of thefe paftors ? It is replied, that this 
meafure cannot confidently be adopted till their paftors 
be tried, and be proved to be guilty. But how can this 
be ddffe, if there be no court fuperior to a particular con- 
gregation ? Befides, it is evident that paftors, who per- 
fift in herefy or immorality, are not only to be deprived 
of the particular charge over which they are placed, but 
are folemnly to be depofed, as no longer minifters of the 
gofpel of Chrift. But if there be no court fuperior to a 
particular congregation ; who are the perfons that are 
thus to depofe them, if they perfift in thefe evils, allow- 
ing that this congregation has withdrawn from their mi- 
niftrations ? 

And Jthly, If every particular congregation, however 
fmall, is, in every cafe, to be the final judge in every 
point of government, this plan feems to be lefs fitted to 
fecure an enlightened and candid admin iftration than 
that of Prefbytery. 

Let it be fuppofed for a moment (and nothing lefs can 
be fuppofed, to give juftice to the argument), that Pref- 
byterian minifters are as pious and zealous for the interefts 
of religion as members of any Independent congregation, 
and fee which of thefe plans is moft happily calculated 
to provide an enlightened and impartial adminiftration. 
In the one cafe, a congregation of twenty, or thirty, or 
fifty members, a great proportion of whom are frequently 
perfons of feeble powers and limited information, are to 
be the ultimate judges in every bufinefs, however difficult 
and important, and no court upon earth can either 
amend or reverfe their decifion. In the other, it is 
either determined by the wifeft and moft judicious of a 
particular congregation, together with the minifter, un- 
der the review and controul of the wifeft and moft judi- 



Letter XIV. 



237 



cious of twmty 9 or a hundred^ or feveral hundred congre- 
gations, together with the pallors ; or it is this alfembly 
itfelf which finally determines it. And, in the one cafe, 
it is decided by a little aflembly, who " are more apt," 
as you acknowledge, p. 52. M to be influenced by 
" party-fpirit, by perfonal animofity, or by local pre- 
€t judice." Jn the other, it is determined by this large 
aflembly, the members of which, from their ditlance, 
their equal relation to the parties, and their previous 
freenefs from perfonal diflike, to which thofe who refide 
upon the fpot, in your opinion, may be expofed, are 
much more likely, as you honeftly confefs, to be can- 
did and unbiaffed. Whatever then may be the conduft of 
Prelbyterians and Independents, it appears to be unde- 
niable, that when we confider their different forms of 
government, on the fuppofition that the adminiftrators 
of them are equally faithful and equally confctentious, the 
fcheme of the former is much better fitted than that of 
the latter to fecure, in difficult and important matters, 
an enlightened and candid difpenfation of juftice. 

Is it faid, that the members of a particular congrega- 
tion are much more likely to be qualified to judge in 
matters which relate to itfelf, than the moil numerous 
affembly of learned, and pious, and experienced men 
who live at a diftance ? It is anfwered, that if their 
judgment be fair and equitable, it ought to be founded 
upon nothing but what is publicly ftated and fully can- 
vafTed ; and may not all that information which is openly 
communicated before a whole congregation be commu- 
nicated alfo before fuch an afTernbly, who, by your own 
confeffion, will be more candid and unprejudiced ? Be- 
fides, as is obferved by Wood (againft Lockier, p. 320.), 
M In addition to the bufineffes of the exereife of difcipline 
" about particular members of congregations, there are, 
" firft, Matters of faith and of the worfhip of God to be 
u defined from the word of God ; and contrary errors> 



2 3 8 



Letter XIV. 



«* herefies, and corruptions, to be condemned and de- 
" clared againft. Secondly, There are matters of exter- 
" nal order and policy, which are determined by the 
" true light of nature, right reafon, and general rules in 
w fcripture. Now, I do not think that Independents 
" will take it upon them to aver, that a fingle congre- 
" gation are like in reafon to be more learned, and fo 
If more advantaged to judge in matters of this kind, 
" than all the able choice men, minifters and elders from 
" many congregations, affembled together in a Synod, 
u or in a Claffical Prefbytery. In the third place, To 
" infinuate that in bufineiTes of difcipline about particular 
" perfons there is no other matter to be cognofced and 
" determined but quefiions of fafi, is another mlftake. 
* c For oftentimes in fuch bufmeffes are involved intricate 
fi queftions of law (ox juris), as frequent experiences in 
" the exercifes and proceffes of difcipline, prove daily. 
N Now although it be true that a particular congregation 
u is like to be more learned, as to matters of mere fa& 
" in bufmeffes of particular members ; yet it can hardly 
M be faid in reafon, that it is like they will be more 
" learned in queftions of law involved therein, than many 
" choice able men from many congregations. And 
" fourthly, Suppofe the members of a particular congre- 
€t gation may be more learned in the bufmelTes which 
" relate to themfelves, yet I fuppofe (that which is not 
" unufual to fall out) there may be differences among 
" the elders, or between the elders and the people, or both 
t( may be divided in their judgments that nothing can 
" be concluded amongft them : what will you have 
" done in fuch a cafe?" Or is it remarked farther, that 
though it may be expedient, from thefe things, to con- 
vene meetings as numerous as poffible of the minifters 
and office-bearers of other congregations to obtain their 
advice, yet it, would be utterly improper that a parti- 
cular congregation (hould fubmit to their authority. 



Letter XIV. 



239 



but that it ought ftill to retain the power of decifion ? 
It is demanded, in reply, whether it can be fo conducive 
to the interefts of truth and equity to veft fuch a power 
of final determination in thofe whom you admit to be 
" more apt to be influenced by party-fpirit, by prejudice, 
u or by perfonal animofity," than to commit it to this 
more candid as well as more enlightened alTembly ? If 
thefe circumftances, in the one cafe, render it dangerous 
and prejudicial to the caufe of juftice that they mould 
them/elves determine without convening this afTembly, 
and foliciting its advice, muft they not render it alfo no 
lefs hazardous to it, that the power of fupreme and ulti- 
mate decifion mould be vefted in them, though they 
mould retain their prejudices after all that be faid to 
them ? Even upon your own principles then, it appears 
to be undeniable, that the plan of Prefbytery, in this 
view alfo, is better fitted than that of Independency to 
provide at "once for a more enlightened, and fafe, and 
candid adminiftration of ecclefiaftical juftice. 

Befides, if any of the members of a particular con- 
gregation exhibit a charge againft the reft of that 
congregation, and there be no fuperior court ; who 
are the arbiters that are to determine between them ? 
Both are parties, and both confider themfelves as equally 
aggrieved, and confequently, by the rules of all confiftent 
governments, are totally difqualified from judging in the 
difference. But upon the Independent plan, they are 
themfelves the only perfons who can aft as arbiters ; and 
this office, as was obferved, fince there is no fuperior 
judicatory, they muft ftill perform, even though both 
are interefted. Among Prefbyterians however, when 
any members of a congregation are injured by thofe 
who are its elders or governors, they can fummon 
thefe elders to a fuperior court, which, if compofed 
of upright and difinterefted men, will judge impar- 
tially between both the parties. Nay, if this fuperioi 



240 Letter XIV. 

court ft ill feem to determine amifs, they can appeal to a 
third, till at laft they arrive at the higheft fubordinate 
court in the church. Thence, indeed, if ftill denied a 
favourable deciiion, they can appeal to no fuperior tri- 
bunal upon earth ; but this arifes only from the imper- 
fection of the prefent ftate of exiftence, which grants 
not to any, during their earthly lives, when aggrieved by 
a fupreme tribunal among men, to appeal to and obtain 
an audible verdict from the throne of God. Nor is this 
imperfection peculiar to ecclefiaftical — it i3 common to it 
alfo with civil government. Among Independents, on 
the contrary, in the very Jirjl injlance> when the minority 
are injured by the majority of a congregation, the only 
perfons w T ho can judge of their complaint, are the very 
men who have committed the wrong ; and whether fuch 
a plan is as well fitted as that of Prefbytery, when faith- 
fully admin iftered, to provide for a candid difpenfation 
of juftice, it is left to the unprejudiced obferver to fay. 

So far however, according to fome, are thefe benefits 
from being the confequences of an enlightened and faith- 
ful adminiftration of Prefbytery, that the oppofite evils, 
however it may be exercifed, feem neceffarily to refult from 
it. " Farther," fays Dr. Watts, in his Candid Inquiry, 
p. 175. before quoted, " to keep judges and party en- 
" tirely diftinft, hath been always an objeft to all lovers 
" of impartial juftice ; but Prefbytery often confounds 
" them. When the cafe concerns the exercife of church- 
" power, whether it be a remonftrance from a church- 
** member againft the deed of a court, or an appeal to 
u one fuperior, from an inferior ; whether it be a com- 
<{ plaint of an inferior court to a fuperior, againft fuch 
u as may have refufed due fubmiflion to its authority ; 
6t ftill it is a cafe between church-officers and church- 
U members ; and all the judges are of the former clafs. 
*< If they decide againft the court, they are in danger 
H of a&ing in a way unfriendly to church-power even 



Letter XIV. 241 

« in their own hands, and of encouraging a fplrlt of 
If anarchy among the people. Thefe views may have 
i* often a greater influence, than the merits of the caufe, 
" in framing the decifion. We may thus fee why a re- 
" monftrant, or appellant, often lofes his caufe in a fupe- 
u rior court ; and why the complaint of an inferior 
!f court is fo often redrefTed, and its fentence affirmed." 

But to this it is anfwered, that if members are permit- 
ted to fit as judges in the cafe of members, there feems to 
be as much reafon to fear that they may be difpofed to 
favour their brethren, as that church-officers will be dif- 
pofed to favour church- officers. Of confequence it will 
follow upon this mode of reafoning, that when a mem- 
ber has erred, it ought to be officers alone, in opposition 
to a favourite firtl principle of Independency, who 
fhould be allowed to judge him ; and when a church- 
officer errs, it fliould be members alone, who have no 
office in the church, and who, even upon the fyftem of 
thefe gentlemen, have a right only to acquiefce in the 
propofals of elders, that fnould be permitted to deter- 
mine. Or if it be alleged, that the court may be com- 
pofed partly of thofe who are members and partly of 
church-officers, it is replied, that the proportion of thofe 
who are judges in Independent courts and are only mem- 
bers, is unfair and dangerous to the rights at leaft of thofe 
who are elders. In many congregations, the number of 
the former is fifty or lixty times as great as that of the 
latter ; and in moil congregations, they are at leaft ten or 
twenty times fuperior in number. Is it not manifeft 
then, that if this objection be valid when urged againft 
Prefbytery, it is much more formidable when applied to 
Independency, where juftice in no cafe, according to it, 
can be expecled to be (hewn to thofe who are office- 
bearers, and where partiality in every cafe, from the vaft 
preponderancy of members who are judges, may be 
dreaded towards members? Among PrefByterians, o» 
X 



242 



Letter XIV. 



the contrary, fuch iniquity, as far as the conftltutlon is 
concerned, is totally impra&icablc. While the clergy 
form a diftinguifhing part of their courts, an equal number 
of laymen are admitted into them, without whofe con- 
fent no decifion can be pafTed, and who, reprefenting at 
large the whole members in their congregations, are ever 
ready, as the guardians of their rights, to repel any 
attack which may be made upon their privileges. Thus, 
according to this candid and equitable plan, it is impof- 
fible for the clergy to domineer over the laity, or for the 
laity, forgetting their proper fituation, to be guilty of a 
lawlefs and prefumptuous invafion of the rights of the 
clergy, but diftinguifhed alike by equality of numbers 
and equality of power, they ferve mutually to check and 
reftrain, and are prevented from attempting to tyrannife 
over each other : While upon the Independent plan, if 
this objection be conclufive, the members of the church, 
who conftitute the greateft part of their courts, are no 
lefs difqualified from adminiflering juftice impartially to 
members, than, in another view, from judging in the 
caufe of thofe who arc church-officers. 



LETTER XV. 

SIR, 

Satisfactory as may be the general arguments fur- 
nifhed either by reafon or by fcripture in fupport of any 
pofition, you will not deny that they muft be {till more 
convincing, when ftrengthened by the authority of apo- 
ftolic example. That this additional evidence in favour 
of ecclefiaftical courts of review can be produced, it fhall 
now be my objeft to eftablifh. 

That courts of review extfted among the Jews in the 
days of Chrift, is a fa& which few will controvert. Not 



Letter XV. 243 

only were particular rulers appointed over fynagogues, 
but, as was formerly fhewn, a general council of fcribes 
or doctors fat at Jerufalem, and decided in cafes of ap- 
peal from the inferior courts. Whether this was originally 
a divine inftitution, or only an appointment of men, as 
expedient and ufeful, it feems to have obtained the ap- 
probation of our Saviour. Though he reprobated thofe 
human inventions which were contrary to the precept or 
fpirit of the law, he never cenfured this court ; nay, in- 
ftead of enjoining Nicodemus and Jofeph to refign their 
places in it, he commanded his difciples to obey its deci- 
fions, and acknowledge its authority, as far as they were 
confiftent with the word of God. " Then fpake Jefus 
" to the multitude, and to his difciples (Matth. xxiii. 
" 1, 2, 3.), faying, The fcribes and the Pharifees fit in 
" Mofes' feat : all therefore whatfoever they bid you 
" obferve, that obferve and do ; but do not ye after 
" their works : for they fay, and do not." But how 
could he have thus fpoken, if fuch a court had appeared 
to him improper ? Had fuch an inftitution been calcu- 
lated to be productive of as much evil in the ancient 
church, as it is affirmed by Independents that a fimilar 
court in the gofpel-church mud neceffarily occafion, 
would he ever have required the Ifraelites at large, as 
well as his followers, to have acknowledged its authori- 
ty ? This argument acquires additional force, if we fup- 
pofe that this court was not exprefsly appointed by the 
divine commandment, but was only fimilar to that of the 
elders in the wildernefs, which, according to fome, had 
for a long time been difcontinued. If fuch a court, 
though not divinely commanded, but founded fimply on 
the general principle of utility, was approved of by our 
Saviour in the ancient church, rauft not correfponding 
courts in the Chriftian church be equally worthy of our 
approbation and fubmiffion for the very fame reafons, 
X2 



244 Letter XV. 

even though it could not be eftablifhed that fuch courts 
were explicitly enjoined by fcripture * ? 

But it is not merely among the ancient Jews that this 
court exifted with the divine approbation ; in many of 
the cities where Chriftianity was preached in the primi- 
tive ages, a fimilar inftitution appears to have obtained. 
In thefe cities there was not only a number of particular 
congregations which had each their feparate and refpec- 
tive office-bearers, but they were placed under the fuper- 
intendence of a general court, to which, as well as 
to its own pallors and elders, each of them individually 
was confidered as fubjeft. 

That fuch a court exifted in Ephefus, Corinth, and 
Rome, might eafily be proved by an induction of parti- 
culars. At prefent we mail confider only whether it 
was eftablifhed in the church at Jerufalem, which may 
juftly be regarded as the parent-fociety of all Chriftian 
churches, and its government as the faireft model of theirs. 

Now, that in this church there were not only mini- 
fters, as Prefbyterians would fay, who fuperintended the 
affairs of particular congregations, but a Prefbytdry, 
confifting of the office-bearers of all the congregations in 
Jerufalem, which watched over the intereits and con- 
cerns of the whole, we hope will appear, if it be proved 
in the lft place, That there was a greater number of 
believers in that city than could poffibly meet for the 
purpofes of worfhip in one place ; and 2dly, That the 

* That our Saviour, in thrs paiTage, admits both the propriety 
and the authority of this Jewiih court, is evident from this, that 
the fcribes and Pharifees, who compofed the fanhedrin, had a power 
of authoritative review and controul over the teachers and gover- 
nors of every particular fynagogue, and confequently we cannot 
fuppofe that he would have required the Jews to iubmit to the 
latter without acknowledging the former. This indeed was im- 
pofTible, for every fcribe and Pharifee was fubjeel:, both in doctrine 
and difcipline, to this fuperintending judicatory. 



Letter XV. 245 

elders of thefe different congregations are reprefented as 
aflbciated in one general court, for regulating what re- 
lated to their common benefit, as well as deciding in 
cafes of appeal or complaint. 

It will appear, if it be proved in the ift place, That 
there was a greater number of Chriftians in that city 
than could pofiibly meet for the purpofes of worfhip in 
any one place. 

The account which is delivered in the Acls of the Apqftles 
of the fuccefs of the go/pel, and of the number of followers 
which obtained in Jerufalem, favours this idea. 

We have little pofitive information with regard to the 
real number of converts to the gofpel during the perfonal 
roiniftry^of the Saviour. If we attend however to the 
number of minifters who were engaged along with him 
in preaching the word, and the expreffions employed to 
intimate his fuccefs, it will be found to have been con- 
fiderable. Twelve apoftles and feventy difciples laboured 
together with him in diffemtnating the gofpel ; and fuch 
was their progrefs in this blefled work, that not only did 
their adverfaries remark (John xii. 19.) that "the world 
u had gone after them," but it is declared (John iv. 1.) 
" that they heard that Jefus made and baptized more dif- 
u ciples than John" — of whom it is faid (Mark i. 5,), 
" that there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
" and they of Jerufalem, and were #// baptised of him 

* It is granted indeed, that the number of converts at this 
period was fmall, compared at leaft with thofe who mould after- 
wards believe in confequence of his afcenfion, becaufe, as Jefus 
tells us (John vii. 39. ), " the Spirit was not yet given,'* L e. fa 
abundantly, " becaufe Jefus was not yet glorified." And it was 
fmall too, contrafted with what might naturally have been ex- 
petted from the perfonal miniftration of fo iiluftrious a character 
as Jehovah incarnate. Hence we find the Redeemer complaining, 
in the ftrong language of metaphor, by the prophet Ifaiah (chap, 
xlix. 4.), " becaufe he feemed to have laboured in vain, and to 

x 3 



246 



Letter XV. 



Whatever was their number, we know that they includ- 
ed at leaft more than five hundred, for we are told by 
Paul (1 Cor. xv. 6.), that Jefus was feen after his re- 
furrection by more than five hundred brethren at once ; 
and it is probable from what has been faid, that many 
more had attached themfelves to the profefiion of Chrif- 
tianity*. To that proportion of them which dwelt at 
Jerufalem, a great addition was made on the day of 
Pentecoft, for, " on the fame day," fays Luke (A&s iu 
41.), " there were joined to the church about three thou* 
" fand fouls" Nor were thefe three thoufand fouls, Jews 
who had come up to the city of Jerufalem merely to 
wait upon the feaft, and who immediately returned to 
their native countries, as Independents have afferted. 
As is remarked by the Weftminiter Aflembly o wines, 
p. 38. The Jews that dwelt without the land of Ca- 
" naan were not bound to appearance at the feftivals 
** there. Nor, fecondly, was it poffible that they mould 
" do fo, if they had been commanded, unleffe they did 
" nothing almoft the whole year but go up to Jerufalem, 

" have fpent his ftrength for nought, and in vain and his 
fervants afldng (chap liii. 1.), " Who hath believed our report? 
" and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ?" Compare John 
in. 37, 38. It is plain however, from the context in the flrft of 
thefe places, and from the quotation and application of the laft of 
them in Rom. x. 16. that they refer not only to ChrifVs perfonal 
miniftry, but to the whole of the fpace after his afcenfion till the 
gofpel was preached very generally to the Gentiles; and there- 
fore mud be underflow d, like all ftrongly figurative prophetic 
language, in a reftrided fenfe, fince it appears from the New 
Teftament, that many thoufands and ten thoufands of Jews, 
during that period, were converted to the faith. 

* When the feventy alfo, it might have been mentioned, re- 
turned from their million, they reported to Jefus, that they faw 
Satan falling like lightning from heaven, which certainly imports 
that very great fuccefs had attended their labours, and that a* 
very great number of converts had believed in the Saviour, 



Letter XV. 



247 



H and home again, their habitation being fome of them 
" fo many months journey diftant. Thirdly, What had 
" the difperfed Jews to do at the feaft of Harveft (for 
" fo it is called, Exod. xxiii. 16.), when their harveft, in 
" very many of thofe places where they dwelt, was not 
" yet begun ? And fourthly, If their diftance from 
" Jerufalem made them to choofe to come up but to 
" fome one of the feafts, and omit the reft, why to 
" Pentecoft, which was the leaft folemn of the three, 
" rather than to the Paftbver or Tabernacles, thefe two 
" being folemnities for a whole week, Pentecoft but for 
" a day" Wherefore they obferve, " Fifthly, We pro- 
" duce a more probable reafon of this matchleffe and un- 
M paralleled concourfe at this time, for fo we doubt not 
" to call it, viz. that the Jews had learned by the fcrip- 
l* ture, and efpecially out of the Prophefie of Daniel, 
" that this was the time when the kingdom of heaven 
" mould appear, as it is apparent both out of Luke, chap. 
" xix. ver. 11. and out of the Jews own authors, and 
¥ therefore came in thofe multitudes to Jerufalem, and 
(t there fettled to dwell, to fee the fulfilling of thofe 
li things that all the nations fo much looked after." 

Befides, we are told in A6ls ii. 5. that thefe Jews, 
who are faid in the 41ft verfe to have been added to the 
church, had dwelt for a confiderable time at Jerufalem, 
and were then refiding there. Such, according to the 
authority of Mintert, is the term x#™*8#, there employ- 
ed in the original to fignify their refidence ; " for it 
" properly denotes, in the Greek writers, a certain Jixed 
u and durable dwellings and is oppofed to Tru^ovtiay which 
u fignifies to fojourn or dwell in a place for a time only." 
And Suicer, on the word, obferves, that " nci^iKiu pro- 
" perly fignifies to be a ftranger or fojourner in a place, 
" and that, in the ancient gloffes, kxtoixm, the word 
" employed in Afts, means to dwell or refide ftatedly : 
** Quod apud veteres gloflas, babito 9 incolo" The fame 



248 



Letter XV. 



diftin&ion is preferved in innumerable inftances in the 
Septuagint, and very generally in the New Teftament. 
The former term, for example, is ufed in Gen. xix. 10. 
Luke xxiv. 18. &c. to fignify a fojourner : and the lat- 
ter, in Gen. xlvi. 34. to exprefs the refidence of the 
Ifraelites in Egypt, which was for federal hundred years ; 
in Numb. xiii. 28, 29. to denote the refidence of the 
Amalekites and Canaanites in their refpe&ive countries 
before they were attacked by the Ifraelites, which com- 
prehended a Jiill greater portion of time ; the refidence of 
the faints at Lydda, to whom Peter came (Ads ix. 32.), 
which was ftated and permanent ; and of Jofeph in 
Nazareth (Matth. ii. 23.), where, according to Eufebius 
and Epiphanius, he was at leafl about four years. The 
only places, in fhort, where »<asrom^ fignifies to dwell for 
a ftiorter period, are in the Septuagint verfion of 1 Kings 
xvii. 20. where, however, it denotes a refidence for not 
lefs than a year ; and of Jer. xlii. 15. where it is ufed 
to exprefs the refidence of the Jewifh captains under 
Johanan, in the land of Egypt, till the danger which 
they apprehended fhould be over, but in which place 
it means a refidence in that country which might have 
been expected to be profcra&ed for a very cenfiderable 
fpace *. But, in oppofition to this, there is a countlefs 
multitude of inftances in the Septuagint, where x«ra<xso^ 
the word which is here ufed by Luke, can {ignify nei- 
ther a refidence for a few days only, as Independents 
fuppofe to have been the cafe with thefe profelytes at the 
feaft of Pentecoft, nor even for a year, as when it is ap- 

* Since writing the above, I find that it is employed alfo in 
the Septuagint verfion of Lev. xxiii. 42. where the Lord com- 
mands the Ifraelites, that every year, at the feaft of Tabernacles, 
" they mould dwell in booths feven days." But it is evident, 
that though it is here ufed to denote their dwelling in booths, 
though but for feven days, it is in allufion to the refidence of 
their fathers in them for forty years, of which this was the em* 
blem. See ver. 43. 



Letter XV. 249 

plied to Elijah, but for a much longer period *. Nor 
will it fuffice to difprove this to tell us, that fome of 
them are reprefented by Peter (A&s ii. 9.) as dwelling 
in Mefopotamia and other places which are there men- 
tioned, and confequently they could not be ftatedly re- 
fiding at Jerufalem. This only defcribes the places 
where they had dwelt before they came to Jerufalem, 
and from which, of courie, they received their appella- 
tion ; but it will not demonftrate, in oppofition to the 
5th verfe, and the moft general acceptation of the verb 
xxToiKtat, that they were not flatedly dwelling, at that 
period, in that city. Nor can it be proved that they 
were merely iojourning in Jerufalem, becaufe they are 
faid in the 5th verfe, only to be dwelling in Jerufalem, 
sv li£6v<rotXvip, and in ver. 9. agreeably to the original, 
to inhabit Mefopotamia and thefe other countries, 
Kxroixuv MtroTTCT&fuav, &c. for as Independents would 
not allow, when we hear of the apoftles and elders in 
Jerufalem ( Acts xvi. 4.), that it means only that they 
had a temporary refidence in Jerufalem, on what prin- 
ciple can they attach this meaning to that expreffion in 
the prefent paffage ? We fee, moreover, that all of thefe 
ftrangers who are mentioned by Luke, in the fecond 
chapter of the A els, are reprefented by Peter (ver. 23, 
24.), not only as contributing to the death, but as wit- 
nefling the miracles of the blelfed Saviour, which they 
could not have done, had they not for a confiderable time 
been dwelling at Jerufalem. Wherever they had formerly 
dwelt, it would appear that henceforth they made choice 

* See, out of the many inftances which might be adduced, the 
following examples : Gen. xi. 2. 31. xiii. 6, 7. 12. 18. xiv. 7. 1%. 
six. 25. 29, 30. xx. 15. xxi. 20, ai. xxii. 19. xxiv. 62. xxv. II. 
xxvi. 6. xxxiv. 10. 22, 23. Exod. ii. 15. Numb. xiii. 19. 28, 29. 
Deut. i. 4. 44. ii. 4. xix. I. xxix. 16. Joftiua i. 14. Judges x. 2. 
% Sam. ii, 3. 



250 



Letter XV, 



of Jerufalem as their future habitation ; for we are told 
in ver. 44, 45, 46. that " all who believed were together, 
" and had all things in common ; and fold their poffef- 
M irons (whether in diftant countries or at Jerufalem ), 
" and parted them to all men, as every man had need : 
u and they continuing daily with one accord in the 
M temple, and breaking bread from houfe to houfe, did 
¥ eat their meat with gladnefs and finglenef6 of heart. " 
Surely when their porTefiions in diftant countries were 
fold, we may well fuppofe that they would refide at 
Jerufalem, to enjoy the benefit of the miniftrations of 
the apoftles. And indeed it feems impoflible to explain 
the exprefiions which are here employed to denote their 
fellowfhip with the church at Jerufalem, without admit- 
ting the truth of this idea. Here then are at leaft above 
three thoufand Jews who were members of this church 5 
and if we confider what is faid of the fuccefs of ChriiVs 
miniftry, and the concourfe of his difciples, which in 
all probability would take place to Jerufalem from other 
quarters, as foon as they heard of the preaching of the 
apoftles, it is likely that they amounted to a much greater 
number *. 

Glorious however as were thefe firft triumphs of the 
gofpel in the city of Jerufalem, they were followed by 
others no lefs diftinguifhed. " The Lord," we are told, 
A&s ii. 47. after this firft great converfion, " added 
" daily to the church fuch as mould be faved." And in 
chap. iv. 4. that, after a fermon from Peter, " many of 
" them who heard the word believed ; and the number 
" of the men was about Jive thoufand.' 9 Here the facred 
hiftorian does not record merely, as Independents inii- 
nuate, the number of them who heard, but of them 
who believed in confequence of this difcourfe, for 



* The church at Jerufalem was, for a confiderable time, the 
only Chriftian fociety which exifted in the world. 



Letter XV. 251 

he is contrafting the happy effects which attended the 
apoftles preaching, with the violence and cruelties which 
were exercifed towards them : " Howbeit, many who 
" heard the word believed ; and the number of the men 
u was about five thoufand." It would evidently have 
been no compenfation for the fufferings of the apoftles to 
tell us, that five thoufand perfons heard their fermons, 
though it mufl have been very confolitary to know that 
Jive thoufand believed, 

Befides, as the three thoufand converted on the day 
of Pentecoft, did not include the hundred and twenty 
mentioned in the firft chapter of the book of the A&6, 
fo the five thoufand who are here fpoken of, do not 
comprehend the three thoufand who are before mention- 
ed. In every other pajfage of the book of the A&s where 
Luke defcribes the number of thofe who were converted, 
either upon hearing a fermon or beholding a miracle, he 
mentions folely thofe new believers who were added to 
the church, and does not flate the number of the whole ; 
and confequently it is extremely improbable indeed, that 
he mould depart from this peculiarity in the prefent paf- 
fage. Accordingly we find that Chryfoftom, Irenaeus, 
Jerome, Auguftine, with many others of the ancient 
fathers, fo underftood the pafTage. In fhort, as the 
Jews were accuftomed in their calculations to enumerate 
only the males, and as we find the term #vJg£?, or men, 
which is here employed, ufed repeatedly in calculations 
in the New Teftament * to fignify males as diftinguifh- 

* See John vi. 10. where it is faid, that Jefus fed five thoufand 
men by a particular miracle : " So the men fat down, in number 
" about five thoufand, av^s?." And compare Matth. xiv. ai. 
From which it appears that the term in John denote* only males, 
for it is faid by that evangelift, that the number of thofe who 
were fed at this very miracle was five thoufand men, befides women 
and children. " Av^," too, fays a very accurate fcholar, refpetl- 
ing the word here employed, " differs as much in fignification 



Letter XV. 



ed from females, It is probable that It is fo to be under- 
ftood in the verfe before us, and that, befides the men, 
there was a multitude alfo of female converts. Here then 
are five thoufand, who, when added to the number of 
previous converts, make the whole amount to near nine 
thoufand members, befides a confiderable proportion of 
females. And even though it were allowed, in oppofition 
to the ufual manner of Luke, that he intended to in- 
form us, not of the number who were converted upon 
this particular occafion, but of the number of the mem- 
bers of the church in general, it is plain that they com- 
prehended five thoufand males ^ befides feveral thoufands 
of believing females *. 

But great as was the number of difciples at Jerufalem, 
at the period referred to, it did not reft here. While 
the people magnified the apoftles for the extraordinary 
miracle performed at the death of Ananias and Sapphira, 
it is faid, A&s v. 14. " that believers were the more added 
" to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, wMfa" 
And again, we are told, A&s vi. 7. that " the word of 
" God inereafed ; and the number of the difciples multt- 

u from avfyutfog, in Greek, as vir does from homo, in Latin. To 
Cl this difference the facred writers always attend. A remarkable 
" inftance of it we have, I Tim. ii. I. — 9. When ipeaking of our 
" race in general, Paul fays, / entreat that prayers le made for all 
* men, a*6%u<rm — who will have all men to be faved, ecvfyavrovs — 
" the Mediator between God and. ?r,en, uvtiowzruv* But when the 
ct apoftl£ comes to fpeak of the duties proper for the different 
££ fexes, he fays, / -will that men -pray every -where, <rov; av^a?. In 
u like manner, that women , &c. yvmiKus. In the 8th and follow- 
u ing. verfes of the chapter? he feems to fpeak of the duties of 
" perfons employed in a family-capacity." Robertfon on Lay- 
preaching, p. 20. 

* If we may judge of the number of female converts at that 
period from what it has been at every other time with which we 
are acquainted, we may fafely conclude that it muft have exceed- 
ed at lead that of the males. 



Letter XV. 



*« pTted in Jeruratem greatly ; and a great company of the 
" priejls were obedient to the faith." And indeed if a 
great company of the pric/is, the chief opponents of Chris- 
tianity, and men whofe example was fo much followed 
by the people, became obedient to the faith, we may 
well fuppofe that the additions which at this period 
were made to the church mud have been uncom- 
monly great. Here then we have a collection of at lead 
ten or twelve thoufand Chriftians in the city of Jerufalem* 
who were all not only hearers but members of the church, 
and probably they confided of a much greater number* 
Nor is this to be wondered at, when we confider the 
abundant communication of the Spirit, which at that time 
attended the miniftration of the gofpel ; the wide diffufion 
of the word of truth, for the apoRles are reprefented by 
their enemies (Adlsv. 28. J as even "filling Jerufalem 
" with their do&rine and the vaft number of inha- 
bitants contained in that city, for it is evident, from the 
account delivered by Jofephus of its defolation, that it 
mult have been one of the moil populous cities in the 
world *. 

Is it faid however, as has frequently been done by 
Independents, that whatever was the number of the mem- 
bers at Jerufalem, at the period which we have fpecified, 
they were completely difperfed at the perfecution which 
took place upon the death of Stephen ? Jt is anfwered, 
that fuch an inference feems by no means deducible from 
the language of Luke, in recording the effects of the 
perfecution which enfued on the death of that martyr ; 
and in fupport of this affertion, the following particulars 
are mentioned from the chapter where this perfecution is 
related. 

* If many flocked into Jerufaiem before the fiege of it by Vef- 
pafian, we know alfo, from the teftimony of hiftory, that many 
thoufands of Chriftians, as well as others, left it, and made wav 
far them. 

Y 



254 Letter XV, 

In the ift place, as is obferved by a judicious writer 
already quoted *, " There is no evidence whatever, that 
u this perfecution was protracted beyond the day of 
" Stephen's martyrdom. The words of the hiftnrian," 
Acts viii. I. gy iKiiyy tyi \p,sgc*. which are tra. flattd in our 
verfion at that time, " literally mean on that day, or, more 
" emphatically, on the fame day. Befidts, though the 
€< term day is fometimes ufed for an indt-finite time in 
€C prophetical language, yet never in a plain hiftorical 
<c narration. Luke is always accurate in the ufe of his 
w terms ; and, when about to mention a period of time 
u more indefinitely, fays either in thofe days, A&s i. 15. 
u ox about that time, Acls xii. 1. It may be fuppofed, 
u indeed, that for a few days, the Jewifh council were 
u employed in trying the pcrfons irrptifoned, and that 
" they inflifted upon them the only punifhment which, 
t€ without the conftmt of the Roman governor, it was 
41 competent for them, that of beating in the fynagogue. 
tc It is probable however, that they durft not farther 
" patronife any open perfecution in the city ; nor do 
4< they feem at all to have carried it to the neighbourhood, 
44 When Saul, notwithstanding the death of Stephen and 
44 the punifhment of others, ftill breathed out threatening 
** and death againft the difciples of Jefus, he obtained 
" from the chief priefts letters to Damafcus, which lay 
4C beyond the limits of Herod's jurifdi&ion." 

It is plain alfo in the 2d place, as was before ftated, 
That the all who are faid ( A6ts viii. 1.) to have been 
fcattered abroad except the apoftles, were the minifters, 
and not the members of that Chriftian church ; for we 
fee that a church, confiding of members, remained in 
Jerufalem (ver. 3.), after thofe who are mentioned in the 
j ft verfe are reprefented as having been all fcattered 
abroad except the apoftles, and who confequently could 
only be the other minifters of the church. 



* Mr. Rcbertfou, p. 37. 



Letter XV. 



255 



And 3clly, as is noticed by Mr. Robertfon in his 
Remarks, p. 41. and briefly hinted by Henry in his 
Commentary, The word ^hcxu^c-civ, which is rendered 
by our tranflators (ver. 1.) " were fcailered abroad" does 
not properly mean that they difperfed in confequence of 
very violent perfecution. " Thefe preachers of the 
" gofpel," fays the flrft of thefe writers, p. 41. " did 
" not leave Jerufalem, fo much on account of the vio- 
ff lence of the perfecution, as in obedience to the com- 
" maud of Chrilt, When they perfecuts you in one city, Jiee 
" ye into another : Matth. x. 23. Certain it is that ^mtttu^ 
€i does not fo properly fignify to difperfe by violence, as 
u another verb, S<fic^o^<^, which we find employed, 
" Macth. xxvi. 31. and A&s v. 37. The former word 
<c implies no more than to feparate, by whatever means 
" that is effected. After the confufion of tongues, God 
u is faid to have fcatlered men on the face of the earth, 
u $ttF7ru%iv 9 when, in the courfe of his providence, he 
" led them to fettle at a diftance from one another. 
** Many Jews were faid, in the time of our Saviour, to be 
" fcattered among other nations, ^laa-noy*, though their 
" exile was Voluntary, it may be further obferved, that 
" in al! languages a verb in a paflive form may fome- 
H times have a neuter, or, as the Greeks fay, a middle 
" fignification. Such is the cafe with the very verb in 
" queflion, as ufed in the Septuagint verfion of the Old 
" Teftament *. When Pharaoh had denied ftraw to the 
" Ifraelites, it is faid, they were fcailered abroad, Xote$ 
" drsG-Troigvi ; that is, they, of their own accord, went in 
" every direction in queft of ftubble. When, therefore, 
" the church at Jerufalem is faid to be fcattered abroad, 
" the meaning feems to be, that viewing the perfe- 
" cution raifed againft them as a fignal to depart, they, 
u either of their own accord, or in concert with the 



* See 1 Sam. xiv. 34. % Sam. xx. ai, &c. 
Y2 



2$6 



Letter XV. 



il apoftles, left the city, and diftributed themfelves in 
ig every dire&ion. It is faid to have been along (xxret) 
* c the regions of judca and Samaria. Thus they either 
" chofe their directions, or had them pointed out to 
¥ them. Luke continues their hiftoTy in a following 
" verfe : They then who had difperfed themfelves, went 
u through the land preaching the word." 

Viewing this paffage then as a whole, the following 
appears to have been the real extent of that perfecution, 
which has fo frequently been reprefented by Independents 
as completely difperfmg that Chriilian church. 

" On the fame day in which Stephen was killed *, 
6i many, relying on the protection of the Jewifh rulers, 
u or acling under their authority, began to offer outrage 
a< to the minifters of the gofpel, who were preaching the 
** word. The fury of the former was fo great, though 
" not faid to terminate in blood, that all the latter either 
" left the city, or fo entirely difappeared as to juftify 
%t the hiftorian in faying, They were all icattered abroad. 
" In the mean time, which mews the perfecution was 
* € not general, devout men, without moleftation, carried 
** Stephen to his burial, and made a great lamentation 
4 * over him. As for Saul, he carried the perfecution 
6J farther than his companions, for entering into the 
* € houfes of private families, which were probably the 
<* receptacles of thofe who preached the *do6r,rine of 
£< Chrift, he dragged both men and women to prifon f. 
IC This would caufe any few minifters who might have 
6< concealed themfelves, alfo to leave the city. As 
" Chriftians would make no refinance to their perfecu- 

* See Robertfon's Remarks, p. 36. 

f Kara rov$ oixovs, which is rendered by our tranflators (Acts 
Tin. 30 " into every houfe," as properly fignifies M into the houfes.' 
" This perfecution, moreover, might be ftyied a great perfecution, 
" which, for a time, deprived the faints at Jerufalcm of fo many 
" faithful pallors/' 



Letter XV. 257 

" tors, fo all might pafs without exciting fuch confufion 
" as to draw the attention of the Roman governor. It 
" farther appears, that the hotteft perfecution was car- 
" ried on by Saul : He made havock of the church. But 
" wherein did that confift ? Not in fhedding ftreams of 
" blood. To that length,. fupported as he was by the 
" Jewifh council, he durft not proceed : But entering 
" into fome of the houfes of the Chriftians, he commit- 
" ted a few men and women' to prifon. That either 
" the Jews mould have purpofed to imprifon the great 
" body of Chriilian converts, or that all thefe mould 
" have left the city for the imprisonment of a few, are 
" ideas too abfurd to need any anfwer." 

But if fuch only was the amount of the perfecution 
which is here related, it is plain that the members w T hom 
it took from that church (if it removed from it any) 
could not be conftderable : and the lofs which was fuf- 
tained, we have reafon to believe, was fpeedily com- 
penfated, and more than compenfated, by the numerous 
converts that were added in their ftead. We are told, 
that after the perfecution raifed by Herod, in which 
only one perfon was put to death, " the word of God 
" grew and multiplied Ac*ls xii. 24. And fuch was 
its fuccefs, that we are informed by James (Acts xxi. 
20.), that it numbered among its followers at Jerufalem 
" many myriads, or ten thoufands of Jews *." This ex- 
preffion, indeed, Mr. Ewing, together with the ancient 
Independents, afferts " to be indefinite. " " We rejoice,'* 
alfo adds he, p. 31. "in admitting that it fignifies very 
" many. But the paffage does not neceffarily imply, 
" that James and the elders were fpeaking of the num- 
u bers of believers in the city of Jerufalem, but rather 

* The words in the original are very ftrong : " Thou feeu, 
" brother," faid James to Paul, " how many ten thoufands of Jews 
" there are which believe, tfoarai pvgiuhs" 

y 3 



2j8 



Letter XV. 



" of the numbers of believers of the Jewifh nation 
Here it may be obferved, that though we mould grant 
that pvyoi is fometimes underftood by the facred writers 
In an indefinite fenfe, fo as to fignify a number lefs than 
ten tboufand, yet it does not hold with regard to pv^tots, 
the word here employed. The latter, in A&s xix. 19. 
JLuke xii. I. Heb. xii. 22. Jude 14. and Rev. v. u. 
which are all the places where it occurs in the New Tef- 
tament, cannot mean lefs than the literal number, and in 
fome of them evidently, if taken indefinitely, mull fig- 
nify more f . Befides, according to the interpretation 

* It is fomewhat remarkable, that while this gentleman pro- 
fefles his joy at the great number of Jews who believed in Jerufa- 
lem, he attempts to make it as fmall as poflible. And it is very 
extraordinary, that while Independents endeavour to prove, againft 
infidels, the divinity of Chriftiamty from its aftoniming fuccefs in 
the early ages, they mould virtually ftrtngthen the hands of thefe 
infidels, by endeavouring to (hew that in a city which, for almoft 
thirty years, had witnelled more of the miracles, and enjoyed 
more of the ablefl preaching of the gofpel, than any other place ? 
no more converts were found among thofe who were its inha- 
bitants than could eafiiy afTemble for worfhip, or government, in 
a Jingle congregation 11! 

•f In the firft of thefe paiTages, the fiun at which the books of 
the Ephefians were valued, is faid to be $w« pvpahg u^yv^ou^ 
which is literally u five myriads,'-' or, according to our tianflators, 
" fifty thoufand pieces of fitver," where evidently the expreflion 
cannot be underftood as fignifying lefs than ten thoufands. In 
the fecond of them, believers are faid, in the original, to come to 
an afTembly " of myriads of angels," ftvgtecftv ayysXuv; and in 
the third, it is declared that when the Lord comes to judgment, 
he will be attended " by myriads of his faints," or rather " holy 
" ones," (io£ieLen f ayiBus. And in both of thefe places, it is no lels 
obvious that it cannot fignify lefs than ten thoufands of thefe fpirits ; 
and if it be fuppofed to be taken in an indefinite acceptation, it 
muft denote even more. Compare fimilar expreflions in a defcrip- 
tion, at leaft emblematic, of the univerfal judgment : Dan. vii. 
9,10. And in the laft of thefe paffages, confidering the reprefenta- 
tion which is there given of the numbers who crowded to witnefs 



Letter XV. 259 

of this very gentleman, It is obvious that it cannot fignify 
lefs than many ten thoufands in the palTage in queftion, for 
it includes, according to him, not merely the number 
of believers in the city of Jerufalem, but the number of 
believers from the whole Jewifh nation. Certainly, con- 
fidering the time during which the gofpel had been 
preached, and the fuccefs which it had obtained in many 
countries before the period which is here mentioned, 
many ten thoufands of Jews muft have been comprehended 
among its followers. But allowing that the word 
ftv%txh$ here properly means, that there were many ten 
thoufands of Jews at this time in that city, " they are 
€< not affirmed," fays Mr. Ewing, p. 32. " to be" all 
" members of the church at Jerufalem ; and very many 
u of them were moil likely believing Jews, afiembled 
" from various quarters at Jerufalem, at the day of 
" Pentecoft. For the probability of this fuppofition 
u we may appeal to the hafte made by Paul,- if pofTihle, 
u to be at Jerufalem on the day of Pentecoft, and to the 
u increafing number of fellow-travellers who joined com* 
" pany with him on the road, as appears from chap. 
" xx. 16. and xxi. 16. " On this however it may be 
remarked, that no argument can be adduced from the 
number of thofe who went up with Paul at this time to 
Jerufalem, to lhew that they were travelling thither to 
obferve this folemnity. It is not faid, in the laft of thefe 
texts, that thofe whom he met going up to Jerufalem 
were going thither with that defign^ or that their number 
was fuch as one would naturally expect, had there been 
a general convocation to the feaft of Pentecoft. All that 
is mentioned is fimply this, M That there went up with 

the miracles of Jefus, it feems to be equally manifeft that it can- 
not mean lefs than its ftrict figmfication, for we may well fuppofe 
that more than one myriad of fpe£lators would be colle&ed, and 
that they might even amount to twenty or thirty thoufand. See 
alfo Rev. v. 11. 



260 



Letter XV. 



" Paul and Luke from Cefarea, alfo certain of the difciples 
" of Cefarea, and with them one Mnafon of Cyprus, an 
M old difciple." Had there been a general aflemblage 
to this facred feftival, would not the number of Jews, 
who went from Cefarea, have been reprefented as 
much greater? It has been queftioned moreover, and 
upon very good grounds, as is obferved by the vene- 
rable Weftminfter Affernbly, whether Paul arrived at 
Jerufalem before the day of Pentecofl : And even ad- 
mitting that he was prefent, it by no means appears that 
by the many ten thoufands of believing Jews of whom 
James fpeaks, are intended the whole number of believ- 
ing Jews, as Mr. Ewing ailcrts, who had come up to 
this feafl from the various quarters of the Gentile world. 
It w r as before evinced, that the Jews in general, who 
lived among the Gentiles, were neither bound nor ac- 
cuftomed to refort to Jerufalem from every part in the 
earth to obferve this folemnity, which lailed for a fingle 
day only, and which could not with propriety be kept 
by many of them, as their harveft at this period was not 
yet begun. The number then of fuch Jews, from other 
countries, mud have been comparatively fmall. In fine, 
whatever number of thefe Jews might have been pre- 
fent at the feaft, they do not ieem to be included among 
the myriads of Jews who were pointed out to Paul by 
the apoftle James. The latter are all reprefented a3 
itrangers to Paul, and as being Informed limply by the 
teftimony of others (ver. 21.), " that he taught all 
" the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forfake 
u Mofes" — on account of which it is declared that they 
were offended. As there were few places however in 
the Gentile world where Paul had not either before this 
preached, or fent others to preach under his direction, it 
is obvious that thofe myriads who were difpleafed with 
thefe unjuft reprefentations of his doctrine, and had 
heard of it merely by the teftimony of others, muft have 



Letter XV. 



261 



been Jews chiefly, diftindl from thofe who dwelt among 
the Gentiles. But if even in the little country of Judea 
there were many myriads of believing Jews, the greatcft 
proportion of thefe muft undoubtedly have been in Jeru- 
falem, which had hitherto been the habitation of almoft 
all the apoftles, and where, as we already faw, more 
than twenty years before, the converts amounted to nine 
or ten thonfand. Allowing however that only three of 
thefe myriads belonged to Jerufalem, it will make the 
number of Jews who were connected with that church, 
independently of converts who would be added to them 
from the Gentiles, no lefs than thirty thoufand. And 
confidering, as will be noticed under a following argu- 
ment, the number of minifters, who for fo long a fpace 
had laboured amongft them, it is probable that their 
proportion of thefe many ten thoufands muft have been 
confiderably greater. 

But if fuch was the number of members at Jerufalem, 
it is evident that they muft have been divided into dif- 
ferent congregations, each fuperintended by its refpe&ive 
paftors. No place could be found fufficiently large to 
contain fuch a multitude, with the reft of the hearers 
who would affemble along with them ; no preacher could 
be heard by fuch an audience ; and it cannot be conceived 
that fo great a number could receive together, in the 
very fame place, the facrament of the fupper. Eufebius 
informs us, in his Ecclefiaftical Htftory, bookviii. chap. L 
that the houfes in which the Chriftians at firft met were 
very fmall, and that it was in confequence only of the 
favour which, in procefs of time, was manifefted to 
them by the Roman emperors and governors that they 
were enabled to ereel: more capacious buildings : " 

" iKKMo-iug i. e. " The ancient buildings being by no 
" means fufficient to contain the people, they erecled la 



Letter XV. 



" every city larger churches. " Accordingly the houfes in 
which the primitive Chriftians were accuftomed to meet, 
were fchools> or upper rooms > or private divf flings. W e hear 
of their alTembling in an upper room, A&s i. 12. &c. ; 
in the houfe of Mary, Acts xii. 12. ; in the fchool of 
Tyrannus, Acts xix. 9. ; in an upper chamber at Troas, 
Acts xx. 8. ; in the houfe of Aquila and Prifcilla, Rom. 
xvL 5, ; of Nymphas, Col. iv. 15.; and of Archippus, 
Philem. 2. But where could an upper room, or fchool, 
or houfe, be found in Jerufalem which was able to 
accommodate thirty thoufand individuals for all the 
purpofes of rtligiuus worfhip ? The only place fuf- 
ficiently large was the temple ; but even in it, there 
does not appear to have been any fmgle apartment 
which could conveniently admit fuch a multitude. The 
moft fpacious court in this building was that called Solo- 
mon's Porch. " Now the place," fays Ay ton, p. 226. 
" which went under this name, was not the mere en- 
" trance of the eaft gate to the outer temple ; but the 
u whole of the eafl wall, which was built by Solomon, 
f* at an extraordinary expence, and was in length 500 
" cubits, or 250 yards. — It is further," adds he, " to 
" be confidered, that the whole length of this wall 
" within, there were walks or cloifters from each fide 
" of the entry of the porch to the ends of the wall, that 
(i were fupported by a treble row of marble pillars, into 
" a double walk, which was in breadth 30 cubits, or 15 
" yards. The innermoft of thefe pillars was joined to 
" the wall, and this made the two walks to be divided 
" in the middle by a row of pillars. Now, the whole 
u of this breadth, from the wall on which the innermoft 
" row of pillars flood, to the Beautiful Gate, together 
" with the length of the faid wall, which was 500 
" cubits, was, according to Dr. Lightfoot, the learned 
" Mr. Selden (de Jure Nat. etGen. lib. iii. cap. vi.), and 
" Mr. Lewis (Orig. Heb. lib. iii. cap, xiii.}, denominate 



Letter XV. 



263 



" ed Solomon's Porch." But ft is obvious that this place 
could by no means accommodate fo many thoufands of 
mervbrrs, together with their children, and the numerous 
ftrangers who would continually be attracted from curio- 
fity to hear theni. Btfides, how could a fingle preacher 
be audible, in a court interfered by fo many rows of 
pillars, to forty thoufand hearers? or how could thirty 
thoufand members meet together in fuch a place for the 
purpofts of government ? Could each of thefe perfons 
make himfelf be heard by fuch an affembly ? could he 
diftin&ly hear the opinion and vote of every individual i 
and would not bufinefs be conducted with extreme tardi- 
nefs and difficulty where fo many had to (late their fenti- 
ments and vote * ? But even granting all thefe fuppofi- 

* Is it (aid, that Ezra, after the captivity, read and expounded 
the law to the Jews, who amounted to a (till greater number, and 
was heard by them all ? Nch. viii. r. — 5. I afk, whether Inde- 
pendents can fuppofe that a Tingle individual could be heard by 
fifty or fixty thoufand perfons ? And is it ftill affirmed, that this 
fa£t, though wonderful, feems to be afferted in this paflage ? It 
is replied, that it is not ajfTerted nearly fo (trongly as is done in 
Deut. xxxi. 30. that Moles " fpake in the ears of all the congre- 
" gatlon of Ifrael the words of his fong," at a time when their 
males only (fee Numb. xxvi. 51. 62.) amounted to fix hundred 
and twenty-four thoufand feven hundred and thirty, and when, 
with their wives and children, they made up probably aimed two 
millions. But if Independents would not maintain that Mofes 
made himfelf audible at once to fuch a multitude, how can they 
demonftrate (llnce in the nature of things it is as certainly 
impoilible) that Ezra was heard in an open ftreet by fifty or fixty 
thoufand, merely becaufe he is faid to have read the law to them 
when they were met together ? And if Mofes, moreover, might 
be faid to fpeak his fong, as we are informed in Deut. xxxi. 30. 
compared with ver. 28. in the ears of all the congregation of 
Ifrael, when he fpake only in the ears of their elders and officers, 
who again were to communicate what he faid to the people, might 
not fomething like this be done by Ezra? Or might he not only 
read and explain it to a part, while they explained it to others* 



264 



Letter XV. 



tions to be not only poffible but probable, It mud ftii'l be 
proved that the Chriftians at pleafure enjoyed the temple 
for thefe religious purpofe3. So far however is this faft 
from being clear, that, though extremely important, it 13 
paffed over in filence, a circumftance which probably 
would not have taken place had they poffefled that pri- 
vilege. Nay, though at firft, before the blood of any 
Chriftians was fhed, the apofties ventured occafionally to 
preach in the temple, even after they had been beaten 
for it by the high- priefts, we do not find that they after- 
wards enjoyed fuch a liberty ; and neither at firft, 
nor afterwards, did they dare to difpenfe in it the facra- 
ment of the fupper, or convene, for the deliberations 
of government, the members' who belonged to their 
church. It is manifeft that liberty would not be granted 
to them for the latter, either by the priefts or the people, 
who would be alarmed at the idea of their meeting alone, 
in a place fo facred, for purpofes unknown to them ; 
and it is no lefs obvious that they would not attempt to 
adminifter in it the former. If Paul fo highly difpleafed 
even the common people (A&s xxi.), though they fa- 
Toured and magnified the apofties, that they endeavoured 
to kill him, for bringing, as they fuppofed, certain Greeks 
into the temple, and polluting the holy place, would it 
not have been much more dangerous had they dared to 
celebrate in it a new Jacrament, which vied with, and far 
furpafifed in point of frequency, according to Indepen- 
dents, the molt folernn facrament of the ancient econo- 
my * ? Accordingly, while the apofties are faid to have 

efpecially as we are told (Neh. viii. 7, 8.) that " thirteen others 
u alfo, befides the Levites, read to the people, at that time, in 
" the book of the law of God diftin£tly, and gave the fenfe, and 
" caufed them to understand the reading ?** 

* That it is probable hat the fupper was more frequently diA 
penfed than the facrament of circumciuon is readily conceded, but 
hsw much more frequently, notwithftanding ail that is aflertedi by 



Letter. XV. 



been imprifoned by the high-priefts, becaufe they taught 
the people, and preached through Jefus the refurre&ion 
from the dead (Ads iv. 2.), we do not hear that they 
were cenfured for meeting the Chriftians by themfelves 

Independents, fcripture does not appear exprefsly to fay. In 
I Cor. xi. 25. we are told, that as often as Chriftians drink the 
facramental cup, they fhould do it in remembrance of Chrift; 
and in ver. 26. that as often as they eat that bread, or drank that 
cup, they fhewed forth the Lord's death till he came ; but how 
often they mould do fo, it does not fpecify. In Acts ii. 42. it is 
faid, that the converts who believed on the day of Pcntecoft, 
" continued ftedfaftly in the apoftles doctrine and fellowmip, and 
" in breaking of bread, and in prayer." But all that is here re- 
corded, is merely that they perfevered in the belief of the doc- 
trines, and in the obfervance of all the ordinances of Chriftianity, 
while, at the fame time, it is evident that there is not the fmallefl 
hint how often the fupper, or any other ordinance, was to be ob- 
ferved. In At"ls ii. 46. we are informed, that thefe Chriftians, 
continuing dally with one accord in the temple, and breaking 
bread from houfe to houfe, or, as others render it, in a houfe, did 
participate their food, or the food, with gladnefs and finglenefs of 
heart. But neither does this feem to be fufficiently explicit; for 
in the ift place, It is not certain that it is the breaking of facra- 
mental bread, and not their fcafts of love, which is intended* 
And 2dly, If this paflage prove any thing upon the fubjeel, it 
proves too much. It will (hew that we mould eat the fupper, not 
merely, as Independents maintain, every Sabbath, but daily. In 
Acts xx. 6, 7. it is faid, that when Paul and his companions had 
tarried feven days at Troas, on the firft day of the week, when 
the difciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them. 
But it is not here declared, that on every firft day of the week, when 
the difciples came together, they eat facramental bread, but only 
that on that particular firft day of the week they had done fo. If 
fome minifters, from a diftance, arriving in Edinburgh on the Mon- 
day before the facrament of the fupper was difpenfed, fhould re- 
main till the firft day of the following week, and then aflift at the 
difpenfation of the facrament, would that circumftance, if nar- 
rated by any hiftorian, prove that the fupper was obferved every 
Sabbath in all the churches of Edinburgh ? Or if Independents 
refer to the writings of the fathers in fupport of this practice, it may 

z 



266 



Letter XV. 



in the temple, for the affairs of government, or for dif~ 
penfmg, in that place, the facrament of the fupper. And 
it is remarkable, that at the very time that it is faid that 
the firft Chriftians continued in the temple to receive in- 
ftrudlion, it is added (Acts ii, 46.), " that they brake 
u bread from houfe to houfe," or in different houfes ; 

be obferved, ift, That many improprieties, as was before {hewn, 
were admitted even by the primitive church ; and that: we mud 
try this, as well as all their practices, by the fcriptures, and fee 
whether it is enjoined or warranted by them. Upon examining 
the fcriptures however, we perceive that it is not explicitly an- 
nounced how often this ordinance fhould be obferved in the 
church ; and confequently, though many of the primitive churches 
eat the fupper every Sabbath, we no more offend againfr the 
word of God than they, if we do not eat it every firft day of the 
week. And 2dly, This argument proves too much. Cyprian, 
A. D. 250. informs us, in his Treatife on the Lord's Prayer, that 
daily communions were the common practice at that time ; and 
Fortunatus, who lived at the fame period, adduces the fourth peti- 
tion of that prayer as an argument for communicating every day. 
Bafil, in the fourth century, recommends daily communion ; and 
fays, that it was the practice of the church of Cefarea where he 
was, to celebrate the facrament four times a- week, -viz, on Sab- 
bath, Wednefday, Friday, and Saturday (Bafil. Epift. 289.) — 
Ambrofe feems to intimate that daily communions were in ufe at 
Milan (De Sacram. lib. v. cap. iv. p. 449.) — Jerome tells us, that 
they were kept up, in his time, in the churches of Spain, and at 
Rome (Epift. lii. ad Lucin.) — And Auguftine, about the year 
410 (Epift. cxviii. ad Januar.), that the eucharift was received by 
fame daily. If Independents then, when fcripture is filent, with, 
us to take the example of the primitive church as our guide, and 
from this contend that we mould eat the fupper every Sabbath, 
why do not they themfelves adopt this example in its full extent, 
and communicate daily, or at leaft on Sabbath, and Wednefday, and 
Friday, and Saturday ? By thefe obfervations it is not intended 
however to fay, whether weekly communion is lawful or unlawful, 
but only to mew, that as fcripture is filent as to the precife degree 
of frequency, they are not entitled to declaim with that feverity 
which they often difcover againft others who cannot, fo often as 
they, obferve that ordinance. 



Letter XV. 



267 



t. e. as many interpreters explain it, and as the Syriac 
tranflates it, they kept the eucharift, or brake facra- 
mental bread *. But if no fingle perfon could be audible, 
as an inftru&or, to thirty or forty thoufand hearers at 
once ; if they could not meet together with eafe and 
fatisfa&ion for the purpofes of government; if no fingle 
place could be found to accommodate fuch a multitude, 
when, as at that early period, according to Eufebius, the 
houfes for worfhip were extremely fmall ; if even in the 
temple there was no apartment which could contain 
fuch a number ; and, whatever its fize, if it could not be 
obtained by them, when they chofe to refort to it, for 
the private meetings of their members for government, 
or even for the public celebration of the fupper ; is it 
not undeniable that there muft have been a variety of 
congregations in the city of Jerufalem, furnilhed with 
difiinft and feparate paftors, and meeting in feparate and 
appropriate churches. 



LETTER XVI. 
sir, * 

That there muft have been a plurality of congrega- 
tions in the city of Jerufalem, I have endeavoured to 
fhew in the preceding Letter, from the number of be- 
lievers who refided in that city. This rendered it totally 
impofiible* for them all to convene in a fingle place for 
any of the purpofes of religious fellowftiip. And this, 
as was remarked, was naturally to be expected, for Jefus 
having afcended to the right hand of his Father, and 
ftied down his Spirit in more rich abundance on the fouls 

* On this circumftance however, as was before dated, no ftrefs 
is laid, as it is not certain that it is the- breaking of facramental 
bread which is here intended. 

Z 2 



268 



Letter XVI. 



of men than had ever formerly been witneffed by the 
world, the delightful period had now arrived, when his 
fpiritual offspring were to be more in number than the 
drops of dew, " from the womb of the morning 
Pfal. ex. 3. 

The fame conclufion may be argued from the number 
of minifters, ivho, for a very confiderable time, were continually 
employed in labouring in that city. Among thefe were the 
twelve apoftles, and, as moft expofitors apprehend, the 
feventy difciples, together with many prophets (Acts 
xi. 27, 28.), and many elders (ver. 30.). The fir ft clafs 
of thefe minifters moreover, and confequently we muft 
iuppofe the reft of them, were fo engaged in preaching, 
that they were obliged to inftitute an order of minifters 
to ferve tables, that they might themfelves be enabled, 
along with their fellow-minifters, to give themfelves con- 
tinually to prayer and the minijlry of the word : Acts vi. 
But if there was only one congregation of believers where 
each of thefe teachers miniftered in his turn, how ex- 
tremely unaccountable muft this reprefentation appear ? 
But one congregation, and above a hundred minifters, fo 
unceafmgly employed in preaching the word, that they 
could not find leifure to diftribute among the poor the 
money which had been collected for them ! It may be faid 
indeed, that while one of them preached to this congre- 
gation, the reft were itinerating through different parts of 
the city. But flill it appears very extraordinary, that 
while only two or three were neceiTary for the^inftru&ion 
of this particular congregation, fo many teachers remained 
in Jerufalem even for the purpofe of itinerating, while 
they were much more needed in many other places, as 
well as the furrounding country. Can it be believed, if 
there had been only one congregation in that city, that fo 
many minifters would have refided in it ftatedly for almoft 
thirty years,, while the reft of the world was fo deftitute 



Letter XVI. 269 

of the means of religious inftru&ion * ? Such a fuppofition 
feems by no means to be probable. The only way then 
in which we can account for this fact appears to be this, 
that there was fuch a number of congregations in Jeru- 
falem as furniflied fufficient employment for all of them. 

In the third place, The diverfity of languages fpoken by 
thefe Chriftians at Jerufalem, clearly evinces that there 
rauft have been a correfponding diverfity of congrega- 
tions in that city. 

We are told, A As ii. that among thofe who were 
converted on the day of Pentecoft, and who heard the 
apollles fpeak, each in their own language, were devout 
men, from Parthia, Media, Elam, Mefopotamia, Cappa- 
docia, Pontus, Alia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and the parts 
of Libya about Cyrene, and alfo from Rome, Crete, and 
Arabia. We are informed alfo, Acls vi. of a murmur- 
ing againft the Hebrews, or Jews who fpake the Syriac 
tongue, by the Grecians, or Jews who, having come 
from places where the Greek language prevailed, fpake 
that language. Now admitting even that fome of thefe 
might not remain at Jerufalem, this diverfity of languages 
would ftill exift among thofe who continued, and ren- 
der it equally neceiTary, as on the day of Pentecoft, that 
the gofpel mould be preached to them by various mini- 
fters, and in different congregations, in their native 
tongues. It may be faid indeed, that they might under- 
ftand the Syriac, as the Jews at prefent, though they 
ufe the vernacular tongues of the various countries where 
they are fcattered, ftill have their religious fervices per- 
formed in the Hebrew language. It is an indifpu table 
fa& however, that the Jews are in general ignorant of 
the Hebrew ; and the performance of their religion in 

* The only inftances recorded in fcripture of occafional viiits to 
other places by any of thefe minifters (Barnabas excepted), are 
extremely few, and appear to have been but temporary. 

Z3 



270 



Letter XVI. 



that language no more proves that they underftand it, 
than the ufe of the Latin in the Romifh church proves 
that the common people are acquainted with it, Befides, 
the exclufive ufe of the Septuagint tranflation by the 
Jews for near 300 years both before and after Chrift, 
and the writing of the New Teftament in Greek (as Lard- 
ner fhews to have been the cafe), proves beyond queftion 
that the Syriac, at this period, was underftood neither by 
the foreign Jews nor by Gentile profelytes *. So little 
indeed was it known, that even Philo tranflates the 
moft common Syriac word on the authority of others. 
And it will be obvious to any one who examines with 
attention the Targums, or Talmuds, that fo ftriking a 
difference fubfifts between them, even in point of lan- 
guage, as fhews that the Syriac, at that period, could 
neither have been generally nor uniformly underftood by 
the Jewifh nation. Let any one, in fhort, confider 
whether it is probable that the native Jews of Rome, and 
Crete, and Pontus, &c. with the profelytes from thefe 
countries, could be fo well acquainted with the language 
of Judea, as to be able to receive in it religious inftruc- 
tion with the fame pleafure and advantage as in their 
original tongues ? — Or that the apoftles, who were en- 
riched with the gift of tongues for almoft thirty years, 
did not exercife this invaluable endowment, though it 
was abfolutely requifite for diffeminating the gofpel 
among flrangers and foreigners, or when at leaft it muft 
have been much more conducive to their edification to 
have heard the difcourfcs of thefe minifters of Chrift in 

* It was only after the Targums, or the Tranflations, and the 
Talmuds, or the Expofitions, of the ancient Scriptures in the Syriac 
Language had been finifhed, that the Greek verfions of the Seventy, 
and of Aquila the Jew, ceafed to be ufed by the Jewifh nation. 
And the difcontinuance of them was produced only by the decrees 
of their doctors, who forbad the ufe of them, left their country- 
men mould be led by them to embrace Chriftianity. 



Letter XVL 271 

their native languages than in one which was lefs fa- 
miliar ? 

Is it objected, that the various Jews mentioned by- 
Luke (A&sii.), are reprefented as having underftood 
the apology of Peter on the day of Pentecoft (ver. 14.), 
though he fpake to them all in the Syriac tongue. It is 
anfwered, that before this obfervation can have force, it 
muft be demonftrated that Peter fpake to all of them at 
once in the fame language, and not to each of them in or- 
der, in their tefpective languages, as it is plain was 
done before this by the apoftles at large (ver. 5. to 
11.*); or, on the other hand, tha' was the only 
apoftle who addreffed thefe Jews . this particular 
time. Neither of thefe, we apprer end, can be evinced. 
Peter alone, indeed, is particularized, but this does not 
prove that other apoftles alfo did not addrefs them. The 
fame apoftle is reprefented in the following chapter, from 
ver. 12. as the only perfon who fpake to the Jews on 
another occafipn, and his fpeech only is related ; yet we 
are told in chap. iv. 1. that John alfo fpake to them. 

* In ver. 5. we are told, that there were dwelling at Jerufalem, 
Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven; and in ver. 6. 
that each of thefe heard the apoftles fpeak in their own languages. 
Of thefe languages fifteen are mentioned : and if there were Jews, 
as is here faid, dwelling at Jerufalem, from every nation under 
heaven, it is probable that the languages which were fpoken by 
the apoftles on this occaiion muft have been much more numerous. 
But if there were either fifteen or twenty companies of Jews who 
were all addreiTed by the apoftles in different languages, it muft 
have been at different times, for there were but twelve of thefe 
minifters, and it was impoflible for any of them to fpeak to more 
than one company at once. If the apoftles however, immediately 
before this apology of Peter, fpoke to a part of thefe companies 
at one time, and to another at another, might not the fame thing 
alfo be done by him when he delivered his apology, upon the 
fuppofition that, at thatjime, he alone fpake to them in the name 
of the apoftles ? 



272 Letter XVI. 

Befides, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecoft, 

the eleven are faid to have flood up with him ; and it 
appears much more natural to fuppofe that they rofe like 
him to addrefs the audience, as they had done before 
(ver, 6, 7, 8.), in their native tongues, than that they 
were altogether filent. Again, it is ohferved (ver. 37.), 
that when the multitude were .aroufed to a feeling of 
their guilt by the truths which they heard, they came 
not only to Peter, but to the reft of the apoftles, and 
afked what they fhouid do ? which feems to fuggeft that 
they had heard thefe truths from them as well as from 
Peter. In fine, after they had cordially embraced the 
gofpel, it is faid, that they fteadily adhered to the pro- 
feffion of it ; and the language in which it is exprefTed 
(ver. 42.) is this, That they continued in the doctrine of 
the apo/Ues, or that which they had heard from them 
upon this important occafion. But if Peter fpake to 
thefe companies feparately, or if the reft of the apoftles, 
as well as Peter, addreffed them by themfelves in dif- 
ferent divifions, it might be, as on the preceding part of 
this very day, in their refpective languages : and no 
objection can be urged, from what is faid in this place 
by the facred hiftorian, againft the argument adduced, 
from the diverfity of languages which originally exifted 
among the believers in Jerufalem, for a diverlity of con- 
gregations in that Chriftian church. 

Whether then we confider the number of members, or 
the number of miaifters, or the diverfity of languages in 
the church of Jerufalem, we have abundant evidence that 
it comprehended different congregations, and that they 
could not all conveniently affemble for worfhip in one 
place. 

Mr. Ewing however informs us, that neither the 
number of the difciples at Jerufalem, nor any of thefe 
circumftances, prevented them nfually from meeting in 
one place j and of this he apprehends that he has direct 



Letter XVI. 273 

evidence, for " where their numbers are mentioned, 
" their meeting in one place is alfo mentioned." In 
proof of this he refers us to Acts ii. 41. — 47, where we 
are told, that " all who believed were together, and had 
" all things in common/' But though it were granted 
that the church at this time, when it was comparatively 
Jmall) met in one affe nobly, it would not follow that it 
could meet in one place when it was much larger. Be- 
fides, all that is mentioned in this pafiage is, that, from 
the love which fubfifted among thefe primitive converts, 
they were frequently together, and cultivated eagerly 
each other's fociety. But to this it was not neceffary 
that they mould ftatedly meet in one great affembly *. 
And though we are told moreover, in this and other 
places, that they afTembled in the temple, it cannot be 
proved from this fad, that they convened in one congre- 
gation even to hear the word, for, as was before ob- 
ferved, the temple contained a variety of places, each of 
which could conveniently accommodate a congregation f. 

Still, however, Mr. Ewing contends that his afTertion 
is confirmed by Acts v. 12, 13* where it is faid, that 
" by the hands of the apoftles were many figns and won- 
" ders wrought among the people ; (and they were all 

* E<r/ ro aivTo, which is rendered " together," in the pre- 
fent paffage, according to Lightfoot, is ufed by the Seventy to 
iignify an aiTembly, fometimes in the fame body, Judges vi. 33. — 
fometimes limply in the fame ftate, Jer. vi. 12. — and fometimes 
engaged merely in the fame action, or exercife, though in different 
places, 2 Sam. ii. 13. Pfal. xxxiv. 3. xlix. 2. &c. See alfo Pfal. 
ii. 2. 

f " The High Church of Glafgow," fays Ay ton, p. 220. " hath 
" three diftincl congregations in it, and there is as much room 
" befides, as might contain o"ne or two more; but their being in 
" that huge building all at one time, will no more denominate 
" them orTe fingte affembly for public worfnip, meeting in the 
<f fame individual place, under the inftruclior. of one paftor, than 
« { if they were at fome miles diftance. n 



274 Letter XVI. 

" with one accord in Solomon's Porch : and of the reft 
#< durft no man join himfelf unto them : but the people 
#t magnified them.'') But before any argument from 
this can be conclufive, he muft prove that by the all who 
were in Solomon's Porch, are intended, not the apoftles 
alone, as diftinguifhed from the people, but the whole 
body of Chriftian converts. That it was the apoftles 
alone, is probable from the connection of the paffage. 
The fame fear which fell upon the multitude in general, 
and which for a time kept them at a diftance from the 
apoftles, is aiTerted, in the nth verfe, to have fallen 
equally upon the whole church, and, we may naturally 
fuppofe, would produce upon them a fimilar effect. But 
if the rejl of the church, as well as the multitude, durft not 
for a time join themfelves to the apoftles, is it not ob- 
vious that it muft have been the apoftles alone who are 
faid to have been all in Solomon's Porch ? Befides, they 
only are fpoken of in the immediately preceding claufe, 
when it is mentioned that many figns and wonders were 
done by them among the people ; and confequently it 
is moft natural to fuppofe that the all who are fpecified 
in the very next words, and who are faid to have been in 
Solomon's Porch, muft have been the very fame per- 
fons. And that the apoftles might go up to Solomon's 
Porch without the people, feems credible* not only from 
what has been already ftated, but from what is recorded, 
in a foregoing chapter, of Peter and John, who are repre- 
fented as going up alone to the temple. Nay, though 
we mould allow that the whole of the difciples, as well 
as the apoftles, w r ere in Solomon's Porch, yet if we con- 
fider, as has been remarked, that it was fitted to accom- 
modate a number of congregations, it muft be evident 
to all, that it does not neceflarily follow that they w 7 ere 
all collected into one affembly. Glafs, and other Inde- 
pendents, have aflerted, that no more believers refided 
in Jerufalem than what ftatedly met in one place, be- 



Letter XVI. 275 

caufe the apoftles are reprefented, at the ele&ion of the 
deacons (Ads vi.), as calling the multitude, and enjoin- 
ing them to elecl: thefe officers. But it might be only the 
heads of them who in reality were fummoned, if, as we 
have attempted to mew, the whole were too numerous to 
meet in one place. Thus, as was formerly noticed, 
Mofes is often faid to have called all Ifrael, and to have 
fpoken in the ears of all the congregation whatfoever the 
Lord enjoined him, while, as was formerly noticed, he 
affembled and addreffed the elders or office-bearers only. 
Let it be admitted however that the multitude of be- 
lievers at large were called* it is not faid, either that all 
of the apoftles, o r all of the difciples were in one place, 
and from any thing that is here mentioned, they might 
convene in a number of feparate affemblies. Were we 
to be told, for inftance, that the minifters of Glafgow 
called the multitude of the members, and afked them to 
elect a General Seffion, would it not immediately occur 
to us, from what we know of the congregations in Glaf- 
gow, that the members would not ail meet in one place, 
but in their different churches, and with their refpe&ivc 
office-bearers ? And fuppofe it to be demonftrated from 
other paffages, as we have already attempted, that the 
Chriftians in Jerufalem, like the members in Glafgow, 
were far too numerous to affemble conveniently in the 
fame place, though this language be ufed, is it not 
equally plain that they would meet in different affem- 
blies ? Nothing then can be certainly deduced from the 
paffage before us, as to the actual number of congrega- 
tions in Jerufalem *. 

It is faid further, that all the deacons were brought to 
the apoftles, and ordained by them in one place. There 

* " Let Independents but confider," fay the Weftminfter Di- 
vines, " how the city of London choofe their common-council, and 
" prefent them to the court of aldermen p. %U 



276 Letter XVI. 

is a material difference however between election and 
ordination, and though the latter might be performed in 
one affembly, the former might be done by the members 
of the church in their different congregations. 

Is it contended once more, that the church at Jerufalem 
was a fingle congregation, becaufe the members are repre- 
fented (Acls xv.) as all affembled at the decifion on the 
reference from the church of Antioch ? It is replied, 
that the whole of the members are not faid to have con- 
vened with the apoftles on that occafion ; but all that is 
mentioned is (imply this, that fuch of the difciples as 
could attend, and were fo difpofed, were allowed to be 
hearers of that interefling difcuflion. What this number 
was, is not fpecified. Nay, it might perhaps be alleged 
with confiderable plaufibility, that it is not evident, from 
the facred hiftory, that any of the private members of 
the church were prefent. The term brethren, we know, 
by which it is fuppofed by Independents that they are 
here diftinguifhed, is frequently given to minifters as fuch, 
and to them alone. It is the name by which the minifters 
of the church of Ephefus are characterized by Paul ( Acts 
xx. 32.), whom he had before denominated (ver. 17* 
and 28.) elders and overfeers — by which he defcribes 
other minifters, Philip, i. 14. whom he fpeaks of in that 
paffage as preaching the word — and which he often 
beftows upon the evangelifts, Titus, and Timothy, and 
others, 2 Cor. ii. 13. viii. 18. 23. 1 Theff. iii. 2. &£• 
Should it be afTerted then, that by the brethren here 
fpecified, befides the apoftles and elders, may be in- 
tended the evangelifts and prophets in the city of Jeru- 
falem, as well as any other minifters who might be then 
in that place, it might be difficult to difprove it. Nor 
can the contrary be eftablifhed from the term multitude, 
or nMfos (ver. 12.), which is applied to that affembly, 
for we fee the fame name given (chap, xxiii. 7. com- 
pared with chap. xxii. 30.) to the Jewifh fanhedrin, a 



Letter XVI. 277 

court of rulers only, and which probably was not more 
numerous than this Chriftian council. In chap. i. 15. 
a fimilar name is given to an affembly confuting only of a 
hundred and twenty perfons : " And the number (o^Ao?) 
" of the names," fays Luke, or, as the fame word is 
more literally tranflated (Luke xii. I. " the multitude 

" of the names, was about an hundred and twenty." 
The meaning therefore of the phrafe (A&s xv. 22.), 
" It pleafed the apoftles and elders,, with the whole 
" church," or, as the word vgry frequently fignifles t 
rather " the whole affembly (g*xA>j<r/#)," may be, that 
the decifion which was given was perfectly unanimous, 
or that what was propofed obtained the complete concur- 
rence of the apoftles and elders, and other minifters, 
who were, members of this affembly. And that the 
term s^A^ae, here rendered church, but which* more 
properly mould be tranflated affembly, denotes often an 
affembly of rulers only, was endeavoured, you know, to 
be proved before, not only from the authority of De- 
moflhenes, but of the Septuagint. Befides, that it is fo 
to be interpreted here feems evident from this, that as 
the reference <was made only to the apoftles and flated 
paftors at Jerufalem, as well as the prophets and evange- 
lifts, who alfo were elders, it appears neceffary, upon every 
principle of fair explication, to underftand " by the 
" whole of the reft of the affembly, or 6»*A>j<r/c*" (ver. 22.), 
befides the apoftles and ordinary elders,, who delivered 
this decifion, the other minifters alone, fince to minifters 
alone the affair was fubmitted. And it deferves to be 
remarked, that the only individuals cf the brethren, or 
as it is expreffed, ver. 22. the reft of the affeiribly, who 
are here mentioned, and are faid to have been leading 
men among them (^yot/^gw), are Judas and Silas, who 
are affirmed, in ver. 32. to hrve been prophets. But if 
by the phrafes, the whole of the rejl of the q/fembly 9 and 
the brethren^ who are here fpoken of, with the apoftles 
Aa 



Letter XVI. 



and elders, are to be underftood, not the members of 
the church at Jerufalem, but only the other minifters 
who compofed that affembly, no argument can be ad- 
duced, from what is here laid, to prove that, at this 
period, no more Chriftian members could be found at 
Jerufalem than could conveniently meet in one place *. 

The grand argument advanced by Mr. Ewing in com- 
mon with his predecefTors, is founded upon Ads xxi. 22. 
" After all, however," (fays he, p. 32. fpeaking of the 
many ten thoufands of Jews who were pointed out to Paul 
as profefling the gofpel) " no inference is drawn from 
" the many myriads of believers, that it would be im- 
lt poflible for them to meet in one place f. We have an 
u inference of a very different kind. What is it there- 
u fore ? The multitude (not the pallors and a few dele- 
" gafes from the reft, but the multitude) muft needs 
" come together." But before this reafoning can be 
admitted to be conclufive,' it muft be proved by Mr. 
Ewing, that, at that period, there was a univerfal con- 

* Is it faid vvitlf Glafs, that this interpretation would attach to 
the term church, or rather, as the word fignifies, ajfemlly, a dif- 
ferent meaning in ver. iz. from that which it has in ver. 3, 4.? 
It is anfwered, that this is admitted, but reafons have been afligned 
above for afcribing to it different acceptations in thefe verfes. In 
ver. 22. it certainly can only denote the whole of that affembly, 
c*r a&KMrito, who were referred to ; while, in the other verfes, it 
may include alfo the common members at Jerufalem. The fame 
remark too will hold as to the different acceptations of the term 
Irethren, in ver. 32. ; and certainly it will be allowed that when 
fatisfactory reafons feem evidently to require it, different mean- 
ings may be attached to a word in the fame chapter, and even in 
the fame verfe. 

f Such an inference is never exprefsly (rated, but fuch an in- 
ference is as clearly warranted by the facts which are recorded, as 
that which is drawn by our Saviour (Matth. xii.) from what is 
faid in .the Old Teftament, of David's eating the mew-bread- when 
he was hungry, though fuch an inference is not even hinted in 
the Book of Samuel. 



Letter XVI. 



279 



eourfe of the Chriftian Jews from every quarter to Jeru- 
falem at the feaft of Pentecoft, and that it was pofiible 
for the multitude who would then convene to aflemble in 
one place. The gofpel had been preached, as was for- 
merly obferved, for almoft thirty years, not only in Jeru- 
falem and Judea, but in Rome, Epherus, Corinth, Phi- 
lippi, and many other places, with wonderful fuccefs. 
In Jerufalem and Judea alone, during that fpace, many 
thoufands were converted, and who, together with their 
children, who mull now have arrived at the years of 
maturity, would undoubtedly form a very great af- 
fernbly. Now, if to thefe* were added as many believ- 
ing Jews as. Independents fay came up from Rome, 
Ephefus, Corinth, and all the extenfive regions where 
the gofpel had been preached, the number of thofe who 
would be collected on this occafion could not be lefs than 
fifty or fixty thoufand. But how could fuch a multitude 
meet together, in the very fame building, for worfhip, 
or government,' op the participation of the fupper ? Was 
there "any houfe which could have contained fuch a mul- 
titude ? or, if fuch a houfe could, be found, was there 
a fingle individual who could be heard by -them ? Be* 
fides, admitting all thefe, it was impoffible* that they 
mould convene in the very fame affembly for the pur- 
pofes of government. .The greater part of thefe myriads, 
by the confeffion of Mr. Evving and other Independents, 
were not members of the church of Jerufalem, and con- 
fequently could not affemble with them for the ends of 
government, for if they were admitted to vote or judge 
at all, they would, on account of their number, have had 
a much greater fhare in the adminiftration than the mem- 
bers at Jerufalem had. Would not this power, accord- 
ing to the Independent plan, have been completely fub- 
verfive of the rights and privileges of the Chriftians at 
Jerufalem, for is it not one of their firft principles, as 
has repeatedly been noticed, that the members of one 
A a 2 



Letter XVI. 



congregation are not to be governed by the decifions of 
the members of any other congregation under heaven ? 
And is it not evident that whatever was the end 
for which, as James declares in the words referred to 
(ver. 22.), the Jews would come together, when they 
heard that Paul was arrived, it, could not be to take cog- 
nizance of the conduct of Paul in a judicial capacity. 
Paul was not a member of the church at Jerufalem, or of 
any church around, and, of courfe, even on the principles 
of Independents, neither the church at Jerufalem, nor 
any of the Jews who were there, had a right to meet as 
an ecclefiaftical court, and "decide upon his conduct. 
The truth feems to be, that James does not refer to any 
Tegular meoting of the church which was to take place, 
but to a tumultuous concourfe, fuch as actually enfued, 
as foon as it was announced that Paul was at Jerufalem *. 
But it rs manifeft that the mere affertion that there would 
be a concourfe of the Jews, however great, as foon as it 
was reported that Paul was at Jerufalem, will never de- 
monftrate that the whole of the flated members in that 
city, as well as the many thoufands from every other 
quarter, could meet in one place, either for inftruction, 
or communion, or the exercife of government. Neither 
then, from this, nor any other paffage, does it appear 
that the whole of the Chriftians,*reiiding in Jerufalem, 
could ftatedly afTemble in the very fame place. When 
we therefore reflect on the circumftances already men- 
tioned, it feems neceffarily to follow, agreeably to our 
firft general obfervation, that there muft have been a 
diverlity of congregations in Jerufalem, each of which 
had its refpective paftors, and its refpective place for 
ftated convention. 

* In proof of this, among other things, it is not faid that a 
meeting of the members would be called by the apoftles, or any 
of the rulers of the church, but fimply, upon their hearing of his 
arrival, they would of themfelves come together. 



Letter XVI. 



But, in the fecond place, if there was a number of 
"congregations in this city, were they perfectly inde- 
pendent of each other in point of government, and did 
each of them conilitute a completely diftinct and difcon- 
nected fociety ? No ; for while they formed feparate 
congregations, each of which had its particular pallors 
and dated ordinances, they were {till fo united, in point 
of government, as to be uniformly defcribed but as one 
church. Never do we hear of the churches in Jerufalem, 
but nine times of the church, and twice, according to 
fome, of the whole church, which was eftablilhed in that 
city. But this is certainly inconfiftent with the fuppofi- 
tion, that each of thefe congregations conftit'uted a fepa- 
rate and independent church, and directly contradicts 
one of your favourite affcrtions, that the term church," in 
fcripture, is never applied but to a fingle congregation, 
who could meet conveniently in the fame place. Befides, 
when we examine the Hiftory of the Acts, we fee that, 
in addition to the particular office-bearers who fuperin- 
tended thefe congregations, they had. a general court, 
compofed of the apoitles and elders of the whole, who 
feem conftantly to have adrniniitered their general con- 
cerns, as well as, perhaps, reviewed the decilions of fub- 
ordinate courts. This court ordained the deacons (Acts 
vi.) ; received and diftributed the contributions (Acts 
xi. 30.) which were fent, for the affiftance of the poor 
at jerufalem, by the brethren at Antioch ; and cfecided 
(Acts xv.) upon a reference which' was made to them 
from the church at Antioch. And indeed, if they deter- 
mined in an authoritative manner as to a reference which 
was made to them by another church at fo great a 
diftance, we may well believe that while they governed 
feparately their different congregations in the city of 
Jerufaiem, they met likewife occafionally as a general 
council, to judge in any appeals or references which 
were, prefented from thefe particular congregations, 
A a 3 



282 



Letter XVI. 



Again, are we not told, Acts xxi. 18. that when the 
apoftle Yaul had arrived at Jerufalem,^ he went in unto 
James ; and all the elders were prefent ? And does not 
this afTembly of elders not only fuggeft to Paul the man- 
ner in which he mould act on a particular occafion, but 
affirm, that they had formerly concluded, or determined 
(s*^*s^sv), refpecting the power of the ceremonial 
law? But does not this infinuate that there were meet- 
ings not only of the elders of each of the congregations 
to regulate the affairs" of thefe particular congregations, 
but meetings alfo of the elders of the different congre- 
gations in that city, in a judicial capacity, to decide in 
matters of more general importance ? And if they met in 
common with ministers from Antioch, to decide in an 
appeal which was made to them by that church, much 
more would they meet with the miniiters of any parti- 
cular congregation in Jerufalem, to determine as to any 
appeal which might be made to them from that church. 
When we reflect then upon thefe facts, which have been 
attempted to be proved — that there was a number of 
congregations in the city of Jerufalem, each of which 
had its refpectiye paftors, and its particular place for 
ftated convention — and that, though thus diftinct, and 
pofTefling their different elders and overfeers, they were 
yet fo connected, in point of government, as to confti- 
tute only one church — and when we fee the elders of 
thefe congregations affembling together in one common 
court, for deciding upon appeals from diflant congrega- 
tions — is it not obvious that the fcheme of Independency, 
which afTerts that there is not a higher court under 
heaven than the elderfhip or rulers of a particular con- 
gregation, and that one congregation, with its overfeers, 
cannot be fubjected to the review of the elders of a greater 
number of congregations, is completely repugnant to 
the pattern which is left us in this primitive church, and 
the explicit teftimony of the word of God i 



Letter XVI. 283 

Is it affirmed, as ufual, that thefe affertions, as to the 
number of congregations in Jerufalem, cannot be juft, 
becaufe, as has been now remarked, they are reprefented 
in fcripture but as one church, whereas, had there been 
different congregations, they would have been exprefsly 
pointed out as different churches? It is replied, that we 
are fufficiently inftructed, by the number of believers who 
refided in Jerufalem, by the variety of their minifters, 
and the diverfity of languages, that there mud have been 
a number of congregations in that city. To allege 
therefore, notwithstanding, that they mud have been but 
one congregation, becaufe they are defcribed in fcrip- 
ture as but one church, would be no lefs unfair and in- 
confiftent than to affirm, that, becaufe all the various 
believers in the world are alfo denominate^ one church 
(Matth. xvi. 18.), and one flock (John x. 16. 1 Peter 
v. 3. &c. ), there is but one congregation in the world. 

The whole nation of Ifrael moreover,* as has been 
remarked, when it included almoft two millions of 
perfons, is pointed out to us but as one church ( Ads 
vii. 38.), and we never hear that at any period, during the 
ancient difpenfation, they comprehended more churches. 
But yet we know that even from the earlieft times, 
when they met, to be taught by the priefts and the Levites, 
it muft have been in a number of diftin& and feparate 
congregations ; and, agreeably to this, we are informed 
(Pfal. lxxiv.) of many fynagogues which had been built 
for this purpofe in the land of Judea. Why then might 
not the believers in Jerufalem, and why may not the 
believers in any city or country, though meeting in va- 
rious and feparate focieties, be pointed out likewife as 
but one church ? 

Is it afferted, as was done by the ancient Independents, 
that though it could be proved that there was a number 
of congregations in Jerufalem, and that thefe congrega- 
tions were governed by a common court confifting of the 



284 Letter XVI. 

apoftles, who were entitled to fuperintend all the churches 
in the world, no argument can be adduced from it, for 
the right of ordinary inferior minifters, from various con- 
gregations, to aflemble as a Prefbytery, and review the 
decifions of the elders or rulers of a particular congrega- 
tion ? It is replied, that the apoftles are pointed out in 
fcripture not only as extraordinary minifters, but in the 
ordinary character of elders or rulers : I Peter v. 1. To 
affirm therefore with Independents, that it was an extra- 
ordinary act, becaufe it was done by apoftles, is to beg the 
queftion ; nay, if the fame principle were applied to their 
conduct in other inftances, it would be attended with con- 
iequences the moft deftructive to Independency. Upon the 
fame grounds it would follow, that fince the apojiles are faid 
to have preached, to have difpenfed the facraments, and 
to have ordained deacons, thefe acts were extraordinary, 
and ought not now to be performed by ordinary mini- 
fters, whether Independent or Prelbyterian. But if the 
mere circumftance of its being related in fcripture, that 
the apojiles met as a court of review, and fuperintended 
the affairs of all the churches in Jerufalem, will not de- 
monftrate that their conduct, in this inftance, is to be 
viewed as extraordinary, it becomes neceiTary to afcertain 
by other confiderations whether it was fo. And when 
we attend to thefe confiderations, we find reafon to con- 
clude that it wa's not extraordinary, for both the nature of 
the thing, and the admiiTion of ordinary teaching elders 
to fit with them in this court and to exercife along with 
them the fame authority, clearly point out to us an 
oppofite deduction. The laft of thefe privileges could 
never have been granted to them, had the conduct of 
the apoftles in this inftance been extraordinary, and con- 
fequently not intended to be imitated at prefent by or- 
dinary minifters. Ordinary minifters were certainly then 
as little entitled, had this been an extraordinary power, 
to claim a lhare of it, as ordinary minifters in the pre- 



Letter XVI. 285 

fent day. Nor were they allowed merely to exprefs 
their acquiescence in what was faid or determined 
by the apoftles (as Silvanus and others, whofe names are 
recorded in the Apoftolic Epiftles, were), but they pof- 
feffed an equality of power ; for the decifions which 
were delivered in this ecclefiaftical court are called ex- 
•prefsly, " the decrees of the elders," as well as of the 
apoftles. It is obvious then, that the apoftles did not act in 
thefe courts of review as extraordinary minifters ; and, by 
admitting into that'council, which governed the affairs of 
all the congregations in Jerufalem, ordinary office-bearers, 
we are warranted to fay, that the ordinary elders of a 
number of congregations are now entitled to meet as a 
Prefbytery, and examine the decifions of any particular 
elderfhip, or determine in matters which relate to the 
interefts of all thefe congregations. 

Or, is it objected, as is done by Glafs, that it cannot 
be proved that there were ftated elders in each of the con- 
gregations in the city of Jerufalem who governed thefe 
congregations, and who, when united as a court, regulated 
the affairs which refpe&ed them all? It is a fufficient 
anfwer, that it cannot be proved that there was not in 
each of them a fixed and ftated elderfhip who fuperin- 
tended it ; and it is moft probable, from the conftitution 
of other congregations, as well as from what is elfe- 
where faid of Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 23. " that 
¥ they ordained elders in every church," or, as Inde- 
pendents would explain it, in every congregation), that 
there were fuch office-bearers. At any rate, and this is 
the point at prefent in debate, it feems evident that each 
of thefe congregations was not independent of the con- 
troul of the overfeers of others in point of government, 
but that there was a court correfponding to what we 
fhould denominate a Prefbytery, compofed of the elders 
of the different congregations, who exercifed an authori- 
tative power over each, as well as decided in matters of 



286 



Letter XVI. 



general importance. The former, though probable from 
every thing that is faid of a Chriftian congregation in 
the New Teftamerit, is a point of inferior magnitude 
only, and, in fome circumftances, has been determined, 
as to other churches, by convenience and utility. The 
latter is a point of higher moment, and, though com- 
pletely oppofite to the principles of Independents, 
appears to be eftablifhed from the circumftances which 
have been fpeciiied. In fome of the foreign Prefbyterian 
churches moreover, where the people are neither allowed 
to judge nor to vote, there are no private Seffions in 
particular congregations, but the elders or rulers of a 
number of congregations, affociated as a Prefbytery, 
fuperintend the affairs of each of thefe congregations, 
and determine in matters which concern the whole. 
Even then, if we fuppofe that the church at jerufalem 
was conftituted upon the laft of thefe plans, it is plain 
that every congregation which belonged to it, was not, 
in point of government, independent of the authoritative 
fuperintendence of the minifters of the reft. And if we 
admit that it was formed like all other churches in the 
New Teftament, and that each of its' congregations had 
its feparate office-bearers who governed* it, and that thefe 
again were connected in a general court, with the office- 
bearers of the reft, who decided in matters of common 
concern, the fame conclufion follows. Thefe congrega- 
tions in Jerufalem, even in the days of the apoftles, were 
not independent of each other with regard to govern- 
ment, and therefore congregations ought certainly not 
to be independent in the prefent day. 

Finally, is it affirmed, with Lockier and others, that 
the fphere of ruling and of teaching fhould be equal, 
becaufe the ThefTalonians are commanded " to know them 
" who were over them in the Lord, and who laboured- 
" or preached among them?" I ThefT. v. 12, 13. It 
is anfwered, that though they be enjoined there to know 



Letter XVI. 



287 



thofe who laboured among them in word and doctrine, 
and were over them in the Lord, it will not follow from 
this, that none were to be over them in the Lord, unlefs 
they thus ftatedly laboured amongft them. Though the 
former clafs. of rulers were entitled to their refpect, it 
can never be inferred that a feparate order, who were to 
govern but not to preach to them, were not entitled alfo 
to their dutiful regards. If this injunction does not pre- 
vent, even among Independents, thofe who do not 
ftatedly labour, from occafionally preaching to them, or 
difpenfing the facrament, why mould it prevent thofe 
who do not ftatedly labour among them, from occa- 
fionally meeting to overfee and fuperintend them, as well 
as to determine in matters of general concern ? To afTert, 
in fine, that becaufe, in the paffage before us, Chriftians 
are called to honour thofe who not only ruled but taught 
among them, there can be no* other rulers who can meet, 
from the elderfhips of other congregations, for delibera- 
tion, is to take for granted the thing to be proved. It is 
as if an inhabitant of Glafgow mould fay, Becaufe I am 
commanded by the Conftitution to honour the Magi- 
ftrates under whofe fuperintendence I live, there can be 
no other part of the Conftitution which enjoins me to be 
fubject to a Sheriff, becaufe he does not dwell amongft 
us — or to the Lords of Seflion, becaufe they are fo far 
removed from us. But if reafoning like this would be 
accounted abfurd in our political government, muft it 
not be equally abfurd to inTer from this command, which 
enjoins Chriftians to honour thofe who refide amongft 
them and rule over them, that there can be no other court 
appointed to review the decifions of the former, becaufe 
the office-bearers in it do not ftatedly refide, and preach, 
and rule amongft them ? 



C 288 ] 




LETTER XVII. 

SIR, til J saMMM**.- 

Among the different arguments which have been 
urged by Preft^terians for courts of review, none un- 
doubtedly is more finking or fatisfa&ory than that which 
is drawn from the fifteenth chapter of the Afts of the 
Apoftles. You have been pleafed particularly to confider 
this paflage, and have endeavoured to overturn the rea- 
foning of your opponents. Before concluding the pre- 
fent inquiry, it will therefore be proper to examine the 
force of this argument, and the validity of the reafons 
on which you objecT: to its cogency. 

Prior to your remarks on this celebrated chapter, 
you obferve with triumph (though as to the firfl part of 
your afTertion, I know not- upon what authority), that 
" although it is pretty generally allowed that little can 
" be pleaded in fupport of the Prefbyterian form of 
" church-government from the Apqjlolk Epljlles^ there is a 
" well known paflage in the fifteenth chapter of the A els 
" of the Apoftles, on which the defence of this fyftem is 
" generally refted. This," fay you, " I long confidered 
" as a flrong hold in which I could fit in fafety, and 
" fubfcribe myfelf a Prefbyterian. I fhall now fhortly 
" flate the arguments by which, in my apprehenfion at 
" leaft, it was no longer tenable." But inftead of pro- 
ceeding at prefent to review thefe arguments in order, 
permit me briefly, after adverting to the occafion of this 
reference from Antioch, to confider in the firfl place, 
The form of that aflembly to which the reference is 
faid to have been made. Secondly, Whether the decifion 
which it delivered upon this occafion was fimply an advice, 
or an authoritative determination ? And in the third 
place, Whether the members of it were guided in their pro- 
ceedings by a fupernatural influence, or were left to the 



Letter XVII. 289 

exercife of their own prudence and fagacity, with the 
common aids of the facred Spirit. 

The occafion then of the reference, as narrated in 
the two firft verfes of the chapter, was this : Certain 
men, from Judea (probably believing Pharifees), had 
come down to Antioch, and taught the Chriftians there, 
that unlefs they were circumcifed after the manner of 
Mofes, they could not be faved. As this doctrine was 
contrary to that of Paul and Barnabas and their fellow- 
minifters^ who were at that time at Antioch, a keen 
difcuflion enfued. Still however the Judaizing teachers 
refufed to yield ; and as a harmonious decifion could not 
be obtained from the affociated minifters at Antioch, or 
a decifion at leaft fufficient to filence the former, it was 
agreed that it Ihould be fubmitted to the determination 
of the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem. This ^ropofal 
- accordingly was put in execution, and Paul and Barnabas 
were appointed, on the one fide, to go up to Jerufalem, 
and date their fentiments, as the Pharifaic teachers feem 
to have been nominated on the other, to fupport their 
views ; and a meeting of the apoftles and elders having 
been called, and the point difcufled, a decifion was made, 
and tranfmitted to Antioch. That we may difcover 
then whether what is here recorded affords any precedent 
for courts of review as held by Prefbyterians, let us con- 
fider, in the Firft place, the form of this affembly. 

On this point there has been much variety of opinion. 
By Mr. Glafs, yourfelf, and other Independents, it has 
been confidered as compofed of the church at Jerufalem 
together with her rulers, and the whole of the apoftles ; 
and the reference is fuppofed to have been fimply that of 
one church to another. " The church of Jerufalem," 
fays the firft of thefe writers, in his Second Letter to 
Ayton, vol. i. p. 385. " the firft church, where our Lord 
" left his apoftles when he afcended, had this pre-eminence 
" above all other churches unto which the word came, 
Bb 



29© Letter XVII. 

" that the word of God came firft out from it ; and 
" that other churches had their order, and the ordinances 
<c of Chrift, from that church." In proof of this he 
quotes Ifaiah ii. i. — 4. and Micah iv. 1, 2, 3. And 
afterwards he fays (p. 386.), " When the believing 
" Gentiles were troubled with this queftion, Whether 
u this was a part of the doctrine of repentance and 
" remiflion of fins to be preached to the Gentiles in 
u Chrift's name, beginning at Jerufalem ? where were 
*' they to feek the decifion of it but there, where it was 
<c the Lord's will, that the do&rine of repentance and 
c< remifiion of fins mould begin, and from thence go 
cc forth unto all nations ? And what fociety mould 
" determine this queftion, but that fociety wherein he 
" gave orders about it, and from which he would have 
;c thattJo&rine to proceed, and go forth to the nations ? ,f 
But when the reference is prefented, no mention is made 
of the members at Jerufalem, though there is of the 
apoftles and elders, a circumftance which is unaccountable, 
If it was fimply an appeal from one church to another ; 
for if the conftitution of the church at Jerufalem was 
Independent, it muft have been known at Antioch that 
the votes of the members, who were twenty times more 
numerous than the apoftles and elders, would determine 
the queftion. Befides, as was obferved alfo, none but 
the apoftles and elders are faid to have come together to 
confider the matter. If Mr. Glafs's account however be 
juft, ought not the members to have been fummoned, and 
the decree to have been called their decree, as well as that 
of the apoftles and elders. Befides, is it not moil whim- 
fical and abfurd to maintain that the Chriftian church at 
Jerufalem, becaufe it was the firft church on earth, and 
the refidence of the apoftles, was invefted for almoft 
thirty years with an univerfal Epifcopacy over every other 
church ? Such an inference is not fupported by the paf- 
fages quoted from Ifaiah and Micah. They afTert indeed, 



Letter XVII. 291 

that the gofpel was to begin to be preached from Jerufalem, 
but not a fyllable is mentioned, either there or elfewhere, 
of the right of the church which was to be formed in 
that city, to determine the faith of every other church 
during the apoftolic age, or in any other period. Though 
this power might be veiled in the apoftles as extraordinary 
minifters, on what principle could it be granted to the 
members at large of the church at Jerufalem ? Was their 
opinion neceffary to confirm the dictates of infpiration I 
or was it fafe to fubmit the decifions of the apoftles to 
their judgment and vote ? Nay, even when the apoftles 
were referred to as ordinary minifters, on what ground 
could the members indifcriminately claim a right not 
only of declaring, to the church which applied to them, 
the true do&rine of repentance, but (as will be afterwards 
proved) of authoritatively laying on them whatever bur- 
dens they chofe? — This affembly, then, could not be mere- 
ly a meeting of the members of the church at Jerufalem, 
together with the apoftles and elders ; and confequently 
the reference from the Chriftians at Antioch could not 
be an application from one Independent church to 
another. 

But though this affembly at Jerufalem cannot be allow- 
ed to be the meeting of a particular congregation only, 
did it refemble a Prefbyterian Synod in every refpect, and 
include reprefentatives from the churches of Antioch, 
Syria, and Cilicia, as well as of Jerufalem ? Such was 
the opinion of the Prefbyterian Divines in the Weftminfter 
Affembly — of the London Minifters — of Wood, Ayton, 
Hall, and Muir ; but this, whether the cafe or not, is by 
no means neceffary for our prefent argument in fupport 
of Prefbytery. The appointment of the minifters of the 
different churches next to any congregation to conftitute 
a Prefbytery, for reviewing the deeds of the overfeers of 
that congregation, and the appointment of the minifters 
of various Prefbyteries next to a Prefbytery to form a 
Bb2 



2$2 



Letter XVII. 



Synod, for reviewing the conduct of that particular 
Prefbytery, are matters altogether circumjlantial, not 
eflential to the flrft principles of Prefbytery, and adopted 
'merely from convenience. It is not of fundamental impor- 
tance in Prefbytery, whether its courts of review are 
compofed of the minifters whofe local hluation is nearejl 
each other, or of min liters who are placed at a confiderabh 
dijlance ; or whether a Synod be made up of a particular 
number of feparate Prefbyteries, or of an afTemblage of 
minifters from different and more remote places, but 
fuperior in number to thofe who conftitute the Prefbytery 
from which a reference is made to them. Thefe circum- 
stances muft be determined from the particular pleafure 
and fituation of thofe churches which agree in government, 
and can be more eafily arranged in modern times than 
among ancient believers. Though then it could not be 
proved that there was a Synod at Jerufalem correfponding 
in all refpects to a modern Synod, it will by no means, 
as Independents have often afferted, enervate the argu- 
ment. The grand point to be ascertained is fimply this, 
Were the minifters and church of Antioch fubordinate, 
in this reference, to the authoritative review of a number 
of other minifters convened at Jerufalem as minifters, of 
Chrift, though the aflembly fhould have refembled ftrictly 
neither a Prefbytery, nor Synod, nor any fuch aflbciation I 
If this can be eftablifhed, all the other arrangements will 
necefTarily follow, and nothing more is requifite to 
demonftrate their propriety *• 

* " The pofitive precepts of fcripture," laid a very diftinguifhed 
character, when fpeaking on the fubjetl: of church-government, 
<£ are fo exprefted as to comprehend every poffible cafe which can 
" occur in the fubjecl: to which they relate ; and, in referring to 
<l them, there can never be a deficiency either of direction or 
<« authority. But when we refer to fcriptural examples for the 
tt authority of modern practice, we muft not forget that an example 
u could not go beyond the circumftances of the particular cafe in 



Letter XVII. 



We are exprefsly told, that the church at Antioch 
referred the matter, for final decifion, to the affembly 
convened at Jerufalem, and that by this decifion they 
determined to abide. The members of this court, as was 
before proved, appear to have been office-bearers alone : 
and even the t>ret/jren y who are joined with the apoftles 
and elders in the letter which was written by this 
affembly, feem to have been of this defcription ; and 
were either prophets and evangelifts, or other minifters, 
who were at that time at Jerufalem. The other mem- 
bers, befides thefe brethren, were the common elders of 
the congregations in Jerufalem, and the apoftles, who, 
even as uninfpired teachers, were univerfal paftors and 

" which it occurred, although by fair inference or analogy it may 
" authorize many things which that cafe did not require or admit 
u of. The application of the church at Antioch to what has 
" been called the council of Jerufalem, is an example and authority 
" for a reference from an inferior to a fuperior court. The 
" example could in this point go no farther from the nature of 
" the cafe. But its authority goes far beyond it. It is quite 
c< fufficient to authorize an appeal or a complaint (as well as a 
" reference) from an inferior court to a fuperior, and every other 
" jurifdiction of the fuperior which the circumftances require, 
*' It authorizes not merely the fuboidination of one inferior to 
" one fuperior court, which is all that the example mentions, 
but fuch a gradation of court -jurifdiction as the circumftances 
" of the church of Chrift, in different fituations, render expedient, 
" This is but one iiluftratioti — but the idea may be illuftrated by 
M a multitude of fimilar cafes, and mews the abfurdity of the 
" conduct of Independents, who, while they neglect or explain 
u away a great part of the pratlice which is clearly found in the 
" Bible, affect to fix down the practice of modern times to the 
" precife letter of the examples they choofe to refer to, though 
" ever fo contrary to their true fpirit and defign. Every pin of 
M Prefbytery could not poffibly be found in any icripture-example, 
u although the general fyftem is not only explicitly but clearly 
" authorized by the practice of the primitive church as far as the 
" cafes occurred," 

Bb 3 



294 Letter XVII. 

minifters to all the churches in the world. Here then 
is one fact which appears to be afcertained, that there 
was a reference from the minifters and members at An- 
tioch to another court at Jerufalem, which was not 
only competent completely to decide on the queftion 
referred, but which, even as uninfpired, poffefled the high 
authority of a general council, which could give univer- 
fality to its decrees, and compofed, as far as is recorded, 
of none but office-bearers. 

But admitting that there was a reference here to 
another court, confiding of ecclefiaftical office-bearers 
only, what was the degree of power which they exer- 
cifed ? Did they communicate an advice only to the 
minifters at Antioch ? or did they deliver a fubordinately 
authoritative decifion ? That the latter, and not the 
former, was the degree of power which they are faid to 
have exercifed, appears, agreeably to our Second pofition, 
to be very clearly manifeft from the following con- 
liderations. 

The decifion which they delivered, as was before 
flated, is called a decree, Acts xvi. 4. ; and the word 
2cy^«, there rendered decree, in the only other four in- 
flances where it occurs in the New Teftament, denotes, 
not merely an advice or opinion, but a law, or highly 
authoritative injunction. Thus, in Luke ii. 1. and Acts 
xvii. 7. it fignifies the decrees of the Roman emperor, 
which certainly were more than* fimple advices ; and in 
Eph. ii. 15. and Col. ii. 14. the ordinances or com- 
mandments of the ceremonial law, which certainly were 
more than admonitions. It is ufed alfo by the Seventy, 
in their tranflation of Dan. ii. 13. iii. 10. 29. and 
iv. 6. to exprefs the decrees or mandates of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and Dan. vi. 8, 9. 12. 15. 26. the imperial 
decrees of Darius, as well as in two of the verfes of that 
chapter, to fignify the laws of the Medea and Perfians, 
which altered not. Nor does the verb tieypwfy** in 



Letter XVII. 



295 



Col. ii. 20. the only inftance produced by Independents 
in fupport of their opinion, feem to denote fubjection 
merely to doctrine or inftruction, but, as our tranflators 
have rendered it, to ordinances or commandments. The 
things, for their undue fubjection to which Paul reproves 
the Coloflians, are called in ver. 22. the commandments 
of men, svTxXpKTu, by which we are unqueftionably 
to underfland the ceremonial precepts of the Mofaic 
law, which were originally binding as the command- 
ments of God, but at that time were obligatory, upon 
thofe who chofe to obey them, only as the command- 
ments of men *. 

Not only however is the decifion of the apoftles and 
elders called a decree, but we are informed, Acts xvii. 4. 
it was ordained by them, xiKgiumv, a word which, when 
applied to an afTembly, and added to the former, imports 
the moft decided exercife of authority. It is employed, 
for inftance, by the Seventy, in their verfion of Eflher 
iu 1. to exprefs the judgment of a Perfian council againft 
Queen Vafhti, when they decreed that fhe fhould be de- 
graded from her regal fituation ; and the word <rvyK%ipx 9 
which is derived from it, is ufed, in their tranflation of 
Dan. iv e 17. 24. &c. to fignify a decree. And in Acts 
xxiv. 6. it denotes the authority of the Jewifh fanhedrin, 
or council of the elders, which Tertullus declares was 
ready to have proceeded to pronounce judgment upon 
Paul — as in Acts xiii. 27. it expreiies the authority of 

* Accordingly ^oyfzetril^i<rk ) in Col. ii. 20. is explained, in the 
very ancient Syriac verfion, by a word which is equivalent to 
judkamini — " Are ye judged by thefe commandments?" by Eraf- 
mus and Bullinger, " Decretis tenenuni — Are ye bound by thefe 
<{ decrees of men ?" by Gualther, Stephanus, and Beza, " Ritibus 
" oneramini — Are ye loaded with thefe rites or obfervances ?" and 
by Budseus, Leigh, Parkhurft, Wetftein, and Kypke, " Have ye 
" thefe decrees or ordinances impofed upon you ? or, Are you fubject 
V to thefe ordinances V % 



296 Letter XVII. 

this very court, when they tried and condemned the 
bleffed Saviour. I do not indeed recoiled a fingle in- 
fiance where it is not to be fo underftood, when applied 
to an affembly of judges or rulers. 

The conduct, moreover, of the apoftles and elders, on 
this occafion, is expreffed by their laying what appeared 
to them a necejfary burden on the church of Antioch, 
than which words, I apprehend, few can be conceived 
more ftrongly defcriptive of the exercife of authority. 
Nor is it of any importance to object that the verfe 
mould be rendered, " It feemed good to the Holy 
" Ghofl, and to us, that no burden mail henceforth be 
" laid upon you but thefe neceflary things," and to aiTert 
that this burden is the fame thing with the yoke mention- 
ed, ver. 10. for ftill, as Mr. Ewing allows, p. 74. 75. it 
implies that a burden was laid on them. When we are 
told, Matth. xxiii. 4. that the Pharifaic . Rabbis bound 
heavy burdens upon the moulders of men, do we not 
perceive fomething more than mere inftru&ion or admo- 
nition defigned, and that they delivered them as their 
MTahpotrx, or commandments, Matth. xv. 9. which all 
were to obey who wifhed to be confidered as of their 
fe& ? In fine, this decree, ordaining necejfary things or 
burdens, we are informed, ver. 28. feemed good to them, 
as well as to the Holy Ghoft : " It feemed good to the 
" Holy Ghoft, and," as it is in the Arabic verfion, " it 
" feemed good to us." And that this denotes a judicial 
decifion feems manifeft, not only from what has been 
already ftated, but from the import of this phrafe, when 
applied to the decifion of an afTembly of rulers. Thus 
Jofephus ( Antiq. book iv. chap, viii.), fpeaking of a de- 
cree of their great fanhedrin, difobedience to which was 
punifhed by death, reprefents it as to iotccw ; i. e. " what 
" feemed good to them." Thus too Demofthenes, as 
quoted by Stephanus, h^o^ut ry fiovXy, " it is decreed 
" by the fenate j" and Plato, as cited by Bud*eus, 



Letter XVIL 297 

Soared pot xctQxmv, " it is certainly appointed for me to 
" die." Whether then we conlider thefe exprefiions 
feparately, or attend to them as united, nothing feems 
plainer than that the decifion which was given by this 
affembly at Jerufalem was not merely an advice or a 
declaration, whether they had commiflioned thefe here- 
tical teachers who had come down to Antioch to publifh 
their errors, or whether what was taught by them was 
agreeable to the doctrine of repentance unto life, but an 
authoritative determination, to which the church at 
Antioch was bound moll cheerfully to fubmit in the 
Lord. 

Still however, though this was an authoritative deter- 
mination, are we certain that they were not directed in 
it by a miraculous influence ? That this was the cafe is 
aflerted by Mr. Glafs, in his Letters to Ayton, where 
he fays, that " the apoftles a&ed in this council as 
" apoftles, and were guided by an extraordinary mira- 
" culous influence." Mr. Ewing alfo fays, that the 
reference was made to the apoftles, as infpired ; that the 
elders too, who were joined with them, were probably 
infpired ; that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were 
very generally enjoyed in the church at Jerufalem ; and 
that when the minifters of this court pronounced thefe 
words, " It feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, and to us," 
they fpoke them unqueftionably as infallible men. And 
you avow this to be your own opinion, and endeavour to 
defend it by a variety of arguments. Let us then inquire, 
Thirdly, Whether they were directed by this influence in 
the cafe before us, or were left to the exercife of their own 
wifdom and fagacity ? 

That the apoftles were not uniformly directed by a 
miraculous influence I think you muft grant, if you re- 
flect for a moment on what is recorded in the gofpel- 
hiftory. Many of their actions, as was formerly noticed. 



2$$ Letter XVII. 

fuch as the ordination of deacons, the difpenfation of the 
facraments, the preaching of the word, and, in many in- 
ftances, the government of the church, did not require 
fuch a preternatural influence, for they were performed 
by men who were not infpired, and are ftill performed 
by men who have no miraculous influence, either of fug- 
geftion or of fuperintendence. To prove that what was 
done in this aflembly was the dictate of infpiration, it is 
not fufficient to fay that it was done partly by apoftles, 
fince even they were not always miraculoufly guided, 
but were left, with the common minifters of the church 
in every age, to their own wifdom and reflexion, and the 
ufual aids of the divine Spirit. You muft produce fome- 
thing either from the fubject of reference which was fub- 
roitted to their inveftigation, or from their mode of 
procedure, or from their exprefs declaration, or from the 
fubfequent teftimony of the facred hiftorian, before your 
hypothefis can be admitted. But from none of thefe, I 
apprehend, can this deduction be made, while, on the 
contrary, it feems probable, from a number of circu al- 
liances, that, in the whole of this bufinefs, they acted 
only as common minifters. 

In the ift place, Paul and Barnabas, at the original 
difcuffion at Antioch, acted not in the high character 
of apoftles, but only of ordinary minifters. Had not 
this been the cafe, they could never have fubmitted to the 
txIis or appointment of the church at Antioch to go up 
to Jerufalem (Acts xv. 2.), for as an apoftle, Paul was 
far fuperior to them all, as Barnabas was to many of them, 
and could never have been authoritatively appointed by 
them. But had thefe minifters, when they delivered the 
very fame opinion, as to the mind of the Spirit, which 
was afterwards affirmed in the council at Jerufalem, acted 
as infpired, or as directed by a miraculous fuperintending 
energy, can we fuppofe for a moment, that, in fupporting 
their pretentions, they would refign the extraordinary 



Letter XVII. 299 

chara&er which they affumed, and fubmit to a common 
decifion of the office-bearers, appointing them to go up 
as commHTioners to Jerufalem for the decifion of the caufe i 
What right had the minifters, or members, at Antioch 
to ordain thefe extraordinary minifters of Chrift, who, 
infpired, or miraculoufly directed by his Spirit, had 
made known to them a part of his will, to go up to 
Jerufalem to afcertain whether the doctrine which they 
taught was true, and whether it correfponded with that 
of the other apoftles, or to obtain any determination from 
thefe minifters on that fubject ? If Paul and Barnabas 
however, though extraordinary minifters, at the l>egin- 
ning of this bufinefs, did not act. as extraordinary, but as 
ordinary minifters, this is one point at leaft, in which 
their pre-eminent character was laid afide; and it muft 
require very ftrong evidence to convince us, tha.t when 
the reft of the apoftles met at Jerufalem, and delivered 
precifely the very fame determination, they acted in a 
character in any degree fuperior. 

2dly, If this queftion was to be determined by infpi- 
ration, it was unnecefTary to have gone to Jerufalem for 
the decifion. Paul certainly, as well as the other in- 
fpired minifters, was as able to have delivered fuch a 
decifion as the apoftles at Jerufalem ; and unqueftionably 
if evidence had been prefented to the minifters of the 
church of Antioch, that the Holy Ghoft, in a fuper- 
natural manner, had fettled the matter, by communi- 
cating to them his will through a fingle minifter, it muft 
have been as decifive as if he had fpoken to them by 
twelve. Is it faid, that the Judaizing teachers at An- 
tioch might have reprefented the other apoftles at Jeru- 
falem as of a different mind from Paul and Barnabas ? 
It is replied, that not a fingle hint of this is mentioned 
in the whole of the narrative, a circumftance which is 
furprifing, if that was the ground of the reference. Be- 
fides, the miracles which were performed by Paul as an 



300 



Letter XVII. 



extraordinary rolnlfter, when, in this as well as other 
parts of the doctrine which he delivered, he laid claim to 
the character of an infallible teacher (Gal. iii. 5.), muft 
have completely illenced fuch an objection, and fatisfied 
the minds of the Chriftians at Antioch. Certainly it 
muft have occurred to the brethren in that city, that the 
Holy Ghoft could not contradict himfelf, and that he 
would not enable Paul to perform amongft them the fame 
ftriking miracles in atteftation of his doctrine, on the 
point in queftion, which he did at Galatia for that very 
purpofe, if the fentiments of this minifter had been con- 
trary to thofe of the other infpired teachers. Since, then, 
had an infpired decifion been wanted by the office-bearers 
and brethren at Antioch, Paul was as competent to have 
delivered it as the whole of the apoftles, and fince the 
evidence which he could produce, in confirmation of his 
decifion, was as ftrong as theirs, nay, completely demon- 
ftrated that his mind, upon this fubject, was the fame 
with theirs, it feems plain that the determination which 
they wiflied, upon this occafion, muft have been of a 
different defcription. Paul and Barnabas, it would 
appear, acted only as ordinary miniflers, and, in the dif- 
cuflion which firft of all took place at Antioch, ftated 
what appeared to them to be the mind of God from an 
examination of the fcriptures, while the Pharifaic teachers, 
on the contrary, who made very high pretenfions to a 
knowledge of the Old Teftament, obflinately defended 
an oppofite opinion. As. the veneration which was ftill 
paid to the latter for their knowledge of the law, even 
by the converted Jews, was extreme, and as Paul and 
they could not agree, it was refolved that the matter 
fhould be referred to the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem. 
By their determination of the fenfe of the law, upon 
this interefting topic, both parties were to be regu- 
lated ; and, in afcertaining its fenfe, it feems plain 
that it was not expected that they fhould be guided 



Letter XVII. 



301 



by infpiration, for had infpiration been wanted by them 
to fettle the queftion, or had Paul laid claim to it 
when he delivered his opinion, and confirmed his pre- 
tenfions to it by undeniable miracles, it is obvious 
that no reference could have been made to Jerufalem. 
The Spirit which performed miracles by Paul, in attefta- 
tion of his opinion, could not oppofe the Spirit who 
dwelt in the apoftles ; and consequently it muft have 
been utterly improper, as well as unnecefTary, to have 
fent to Jerufalem to fee whether Paul's fentiments ac- 
corded with theirs, or whether the apoftles had commif- 
iioned thefe men from judea to teach the do&rine which 
Paul condemned, or for any purpofe that Independents 
have fpecified. 

In the 3d place, The perfons to whom this reference 
was made, were not only apoftles but ordinary elders. 
When Paul and Barnabas ( Acts xv. 2.) had had no fmall 
diffenfion and difputation with the falfe teachers at An- 
tioch, the rulers of that church determined that thefe 
minifters Ihould go up to Jerufalem, to the apoftles and 
elders, about this queftion. If then, as is plain, the term 
elder is employed in fcripture to reprefent only ordinary 
minifters of Chrift, or extraordinary minifters in their 
ordinary capacity y and if the reference, in this cafe, was 
made to thefe minifters equally with the apoftles ; if they 
met officially " to conjider of the matter" (ver. 6.)— claim 
authoritative fuperiority to the falfe teachers, and declare 
that they were entitled to teach nothing but what they 
commanded them (ver. 24.) — decide on the queftion, and 
fay that it feemed good to them, as well as to the apoftles 
and the Spirit, to lay upon the brethren at Antioch 
necefTary burdens (ver. 28.); and if the decifion which 
Was made be called their decrees, as well as the decrees 
of the apoftles (chap. xvi. 4.); it feems necelTarily to 
follow, that the apoftles, as well as elders, muft have 
aded here only as ordinary minifters, Had not this been 
Cc 



302 



Letter XVII. 



the cafe, It was impofiible for the elders to le judges at alL 
The apoftles alone being extraordinary rulers, and pof- 
feffed of miraculous influence, elders could have fubmitted 
only, and not judged; for men who were uninfpired could 
certainly not add, by their councils or opinions, to the 
dictates of infpiration, and much lefs could they be 
requifite to prevent it from erring : confequently, fincc 
they, as well as the apoftles, are faid to be referred to 
as judges, and to have difcharged this duty, the apoftles 
mud have acted, on this cccafion, only as ordinary 
minifters. 

Mr. Ewing indeed affirms, p. 19. that the elders 
fpecified, were probably endowed with the extraordinary 
gifts of the Holy Ghoft. This however is a gratuitous 
affertion, for no part of the facred hiftory fupports it. 
Betides, though it were admitted that fome of the ordinary 
minifters, as well as the members, of many primitive 
churches were pofTeffed of thefe gifts, it cannot be 
demonftrated that it was the univerfal attainment of all 
the common paftors of this, or any of thefe primitive 
churches *, while, on the contrary, it can be evinced that 
the term elder is applied ufually in fcripture to officers 
who have no fuch miraculous endowments, nor extraordi- 
nary character. Is it alleged, moreover, as Mr. Ewing 
does, that the meflage from Antioch was intended to 
afcertain not merely a point of doftrine, but alfo a point 
of fadr. — not merely whether Gentile believers muft be 
circumcifed, but whether the men from Judea had been 
fent by thefe minifters at Jerufalem to teach the brethren 
at Antioch to this effect ? It is anfwered, that it is 
obvious from the facred narrative, as has been already 
proved, that the elders, not lefs than the apoftles, were 

* If there were only fix elders, or even one elder, in this 
aflembly, who was not infpired, and yet was allowed to judge, all 
the reft muft have a£led only as ordinary minifters, otherwife he 
could not have judged, but could only have fubmitted. 



Letter XVII. 



303 



dire&ly applied to, to decide the controverfy or queftion, 
as well as to afcertain the fa£ (if an application for the 
latter purpofe was made at all); that they equally came 
together to conftder of the matter — and this certainly could 
not be the matter of fact, for of that there could be no 
doubt ; that they both authoritatively, not merely afcer- 
tained a fact, but laid neceflary burdens, or things, upon 
the church at Antioch ; and that the decrees which 
they paffed, not unqueftionably about a fact, but about 
the queftion* referred, are denominated the decrees of 
both. Or is it affirmed again with that writer, that it 
is not wonderful that the brethren at Antioch mould 
have joined the apoftles and elders together in their 
mefTage, when the apoftles fometimes clafs themfelves in 
the fame manner*, and, on this occafion, take along 
with them not only the elders, but the whole church, in 
their reply ? We obferve, that it is yet to be demon- 
flrated that the whole of the common members of the 
church, as well as the elders, were included by them in 
their reply ; and that the contrary has at leaft been 
attempted to be eftabliftied. — And as when Peter denomi- 
nates himfelf, in the pafTage here cited, an elder or pref- 
byter, he fpeaks of himfelf only as a common ruler, fo, 
in this light, I contend that he, as well as his fellow- 
apoftles, are to be viewed in this meeting at Jerufalem. 
Befides, even if this term, when applied to that apoftle, 
was defcriptive of him as an extraordinary minifter of 
Chrift, it is plain that when it is bellowed upon ordinary 
minifters, as in the cafe before us, it mud be underftood 
in a completely different fenfe. And though Paul joins 
with himfelf others who were not apoftles, in the faluta- 
tions and benedictions which he delivers in his Epiftles 
to feveral Chriftian churches, he never fays of himfelf 
and thefe inferior minifters, It feemed good to us, and 



* See 1 Peter v. r. 

C c 2 



304 



Letter XVII. 



the Holy Ghoft, to lay upon you necefTary burdens ; 
and never, as was before noticed, are his Epiftles to thefe 
churches called, like thefe decrees, the Epiftles of Paul 
and Timothy, or Paul and Silvanus. Thefe were pre- 
rogatives to which none of the companions of Paul were 
admitted, but prerogatives which are afcribed, in the 
prefent cafe, to the elders as well as apoftles ; and con- 
fequently this circnmftaace, in the view of every candid 
and unprejudiced mind, mull mark an equality of power, 
as having been exercifed by them in the inftance be- 
fore us. 

Farther, is it maintained with Glafs*, that when 
** we read of the apoftles, and elders, and brethren, 
" acting in this matter, we muft underftand that every 
H one of them did the part that was proper to them? 
" that the apoftles brought forth and infallibly declared 
H the mind and will of the Lord Chrift upon this 
¥ fubject ; that the prefidents or elders of the church 
" in Jerufalem went before the brethren as enfamples of 
u JubjeElton unto the revelation of the mind and will of 
M the Lord by the apoftles, and were their leaders in 
u this matter ; and that the brethren obeyed and fubmttted 

them/elves to their prefidents and guides, who agreed 
<{ in judging according to the mind and will of Chrift 
" brought forth by the apoftles I" The fame objections 
feem to prefent themfeives to this, as to the preceding 
explanations. On this fuppofition, it is evident that the 
elders did not judge, with regard to the point of con- 
troverfy, any more than the common members at Jerufa- 
lem, or even than the members at Antioch ; that all that 
they did, was merely, like the brethren in Antioch and 
Jerufalem, to fubmlt to the decifion of the apoftles ; and 
that the latter were the only arbiters in the bufinefs. 
But how can this be reconciled with what has been 



* See his Second Letter to Ayton, 



Letter XVII. 



305 



already Hated, that the elders, as well as apoftles, met 
officially " to confider of the matter ?" Since then 
the bufiaefs was referred to and determined by the 
elders as well as apoftles, both of them muft have 
a&ed only as ordinary rulers, for had any of them 
been directed as extraordinary minifters by a miraculous 
influence of fuggeftion or fuperintendence, the reft, as 
Glafs very honeftly confefles, could only have fubmitted, 
and could not have been allowed to judge at all. 

Laftly, The manner of procedure, in this court, does 
not indicate that they acted as extraordinary minifters, 
or were directed by a fupernatural influence from God* 
We are told by Luke, A6ts xv. 7. that, in the begin- 
ning of their confutation, " there was much difputing 
u amongft them." But furely thofe perfons, whofe de- 
ciiion was not paiTed till after much difputation, could 
not all have been infpired, or do not, at leaft during the 
whole of their meeting, appear to have been guided by 
a miraculous influence. " Here, however, it may be 
4i remarked," fay you, p. 42. 41 that the expreffion) 
41 <rvfy)Tn<ri$ feems by no means neceflarily to imply oppo- 
€i fition of fentiment, but limply mutual difcufiion or 
J 4 inquiry. It is indeed the fame word rendered dtfputa- 
f* tion, ver, 2. but there it is connected with another 
44 tranflated difTenfion, which, from its ufe in, 

44 other paflages, clearly indicates the moft decided oppofi- 
u tion of fentiment. This is apparent from its being ufed, 
44 chap xxiii. 7. 10. to denote the difTenfion that took 
M place between the Pharifees and Sadducees. It would 
44 rather argue a tautology in the facred writer, if, in 
44 ver. 2. of this chapter, he employs two words to exprefs 
44 precifely the fame idea." It by no means however 
appears a tautology to render o-vfywiris M difputation," 
in the 2d verfe ; for the word ?«0-<f, tranflated 44 dif- 
44 fenflon," may denote the oppofition of fentiment 
that was between them, and crvfymtrtS) the difputation 
Cc 3 



Letter XVII. 



which enfued in confequence of that diffenfion or contra- 
riety of fentiment. Befides, we know that the verb 
from which it conies, is ufed in Acts vi. 9. to exprefs the 
dlfputation which took place between Stephen and the 
Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians ; and in Acts 
ix. 29. the difputation of Saul againft the Grecians; 
and a kindred-noun is employed by Paul, 1 Cor. i. 20. 
to fignify the difputer of this world. That this is the 
fenfe in which vvfyimnq mull be underftood in the 7th 
verfe, feems evident from this, that it is faid that after 
there had been much <rvtyiTV)<rt$, Peter rofe, and faid, " Why 
" tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the 
" difciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to 
<c bear J" Had there been only however, as you exprefs 
5t, u mutual inquiry on this fubjecl:," how could he repro- 
bate what* had been already faid by them, as approaching 
almoft to a tempting of God? Is inquiry, which is a duty 
when lawfully profecuted, to be branded with fuch a name $ 
And fince the conduct of part at leaft of the prefent 
aflembly (whether they {imply inquired, as you contend that 
the word mould be rendered, or keenly difputed, as others 
maintain) is diftinguifhed by this name, as far as the 
bufinefs had already proceeded, is this confiftent, I would 
afk you, with the fuppofition, that they were either guided 
by an infallible energy, or by miraculous fuggeftion ? 

" But waving your remark," fay you, p. 43. " and 
" admitting that there was really a debate in the church 
" on this occafion, Dr. Doddridge's Note on the paf- 
#< fage feems extremely juft. This difpute," he ob- 
ferves, " does not appear to have been^among the apoftles 
" themfelves." — But how this obfervation, which ap- 
pears to you fo juft, can be considered as admiffible, I 
do not fee. We are exprefsly told, ver. 6. after what 
had been mentioned of the difTenfions which had taken 
place upon this fubject at Antioch, and probably at 
Jerusalem, -that the apojlks and eldm came together to 



Letter XVII. 307 

eonfider the matter. Now, fince this Is ftated in the 
very verfe which goes before, it would naturally, I 
think, occur to any unprejudiced mind, that the much 
difputing, mentioned in the next verfe, muft have 
happened only among the apoflles and elders, who had 
come together to eonfider the matter. To none but them 
was the bufinels referred ; and as none but they are here 
reprefented to have affembled to deliberate about it, 
on what principle can it be proved, either from the 
authority of Dr. Doddridge, or of any other writer, that 
any but the apoflles and elders difputed ? And if they 
had not only difputation, but much difputaiion, before 
they were even prepared to attend to the propofal 
which was made to them by Peter, is it probable that 
the aiTembly, during the whole of the difcuffion, was 
either fupernaturally infpired, or miraculoufly fuperin- 
tended by tht fame facred Spirit? If this was the cafe, 
that Spirit, who is the author of order and not of con- 
fufion, of unity and not of difcord, muft as yet at leaft 
have flimulated the whole of this great aflembly, who 
were all infpired, or conducted by his influence, to 
mutual controverfy and mutual diffenfion. 

But if much deputation prevailed in this afTembly before 
they were addrelTed by Peter and James, what method 
was adopted by thefe apoftles to bring them to un- 
animity, and to lead them to^the deciiion which they 
at laft pa{fed ? Did they lay claim to any extraordi- 
nary infpiration of the Spirit, to bend the minds of 
the diffentient brethren ? or is it any where declared, 
that the Spirit, after this, defcended, and difpofed them 
to make an enlightened and harmonious determination ? 
No, affuredly. None of thefe claims was made by Peter 
or his fellow- apoftles, and no fuch extraordinary infpiring 
influence is even, in the mofl dijlant manner ', affirmed to 
have been communicated after this to any, or all of them. 
We are merely told, that Peter reafoned with them, to 



308 Letter XVII. 

prove that the Gentiles needed not to be clrcumcifed m 
order to falvation, as any Chriftian minifter might now 
do, from fads which were obvious and notorious to alL 
He informs them, that they all knew that a good while 
ago (alluding to the converfion of Cornelius), God made 
choice among them, that the Gentiles by his mouth 
mould hear the word of the gofpel ; and that God, who 
knoweth the hearts, bare them witnefs, beftowing upon 
them the Holy Ghoft, in his miraculous gifts and faving 
benefits, even as he did to them ; and put no difference 
between the one and the other, purifying their hearts by 
faith. After this it is faid, that, in confirmation of the 
fame truth, Barnabas and Paul declared what miracfes 
and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by 
them : and then it is mentioned, that, to eftabliih the 
fame doctrine, James quoted a paffage from the prophet 
Amos, as explicitly fupporting the fentiments of his 
brethren. But what is there in this which befpeaks 
infpiration ? Was it impoflible for them to deduce fuch 
conclufions from thefe miracles, thefe fa&s, and thefe 
prophecies, without being infpired, or dirt&ed by a 
miraculous influence ? If fo, how can fimilar conclufions 
be now made on other fubje&s, and with perfect accuracy, 
by men who are neither fo infpired nor directed ? If 
however, on the contrary, as appears to be incontellable, 
all this might have been done by them then, as well as 
by minifters now, without the infpiration of fuggeflion 
or fuperintendence, and if neither they themfeives, nor 
the facred hiftorian, claim for them either of thefe kinds 
of infpiration, on what principle can it confiftently be 
maintained that they were, at this time, conducted by this 
miraculous energy ? 

Is it objected further with Glafs *, that it cannot be 
demonftrated that the apoftles and other minifters were 



* See his Second Letter to Ay ton. 



Letter XVII. 309 

not infpired, from their eftabliihing their opinion by 
reafoning from miracles and ancient prophecies, becaufe 
the fame thing is done in all the infpired Epiftles, which 
yet were written by an infallible influence ? It is an- 
fwered, that if the mere circumftance of their reafoning 
does not appear of itfelf to prove that they were not in- 
fpired, it is at leaft a prefumptive argument againft it, 
unlefs their infpiration could be evinced from other con- 
fiderations ; and when viewed together with the circum- 
flances which attended their reafoning, it feems to be 
completely decifive. Befides, there is a moft linking 
difference between the reafonings of the apoftles in their 
infpired Epiftles, and in the cafe in queflion. Before 
they wrote their Epiftles, they were fully fatisfied of the 
mind of Chrift as to the point of which they were to 
fpeak, and all the reafoning which they employ in them, 
under his direction, is fimply to recommend it to their 
fellow-men. But here they afTemble to afcertain his 
mind about a point as to which they were yet uncertain* 
and before they determine on it, fo as to announce it to 
others, have much difputation and reafoning refpe&ing 
it among themfelves. It is evident therefore that the 
objection is not in point, and that before any thing can 
be deduced from it, a cafe muft be produced in w r hich a 
number of apoftles and ordinary minifters met under ex- 
traordinary fuperintending influence to write an infpired 
Epiftle, and before they determined upon what they mould 
fay,had much difputation and difcuffion among themfelves. 
But this Mr. Glafs never attempted to produce, and no 
Independent has ever been able to bring forward. 

Or is it alleged with Doddridge, as quoted by you, 
p. 43. " That if the apoftles really had debated the 
" cafe awhile, their decifion at laft might have been 
" under an unerring direction : and that there appears 
" to be no reafon to conclude that their infpira- 
" tion was always fo inftantaneous and exprefs, as to 



310 Letter XVII. 

" fuperfede any deliberation of their own minds, or any 
u confultation with each other ?" It is here conceded, 
that when the apoftles and elders firft met, they we're 
not under an infallible miraculous influence ; and if they 
were not under that influence when th'ey firft convened, 
it will be difficult to afcertain, from the facred hiftory, 
when the afflatus or guidance began. It is alfo to be re- 
collected, that if this aflembly met and reafoned fo long 
as to the mind of the Spirit, and yet were infpired from 
the period that they convened, or at laft obtained this 
fupernatural influence after much deputation, the cafe is 
fo extraordinary , and fo entirely different from every other 
inftance of the infpiration of the Spirit recorded either 
in the Old or New Teftament, that before it can be ad- 
mitted, very explicit declarations of the fa<ft muft be 
produced. But none of thefe, we believe, can be found 
by any one who turns his attention to the narrative of 
JLuke ; and all that is mentioned by the Doctor, and 
other Independents, is, that it might be the cafe- On the 
whole, even though it were allowed that the apoftles 
and elders might confult together before the Spirit was 
pleafed to make known to them his will, I would afk any 
man, whether it is probable that he would fuffer them to 
meet in his name as an infpired affembiy (if they were 
referred to as fuch), and not merely advife with each 
other, but difpute, and even have fo much difputation as 
that they are actually faid to have been almoft guilty of 
tempting him ? 

In fine, you obferve, p. 43. that " no one calls 
" in queftion the infallibility of this decifion by what- 
" ever procefs it was formed. This, then," you remark, 
H is enough for our argument. While the apoftles 
li were at Jerufalem, while they could give an in- 
ct fallible anfwer to the queftion appealed to them ; 
i( while they could afluredly fay, Thus it feemed good to 



Letter XVII. 



u the Holy Ghojl, and quote miracles in fupport of the 
" aflertion ; then the church at Jerufalem was in a Hate 
" totally peculiar, and an appeal to it, in fuch circum- 
" ftances, forms no argument for a fimilar appeal to any 
u other church." We know afluredly, from the facred 
records, that their decifion was juft, but that it was 
infpired, or infallible, is not flated. It is manifeft that 
they did not err in their determination, but that they 
might not have erred in it, as well as in their debates and 
reafonings, is not afTerted. Refpefting therefore the 
poflibility of their erring it is needlefs to debate, and it 
ought rather to be fatisfa&orily proved by Independents, 
that they could not difcover the truth, on this fubjecl:, with- 
out fuch an influence — a point which as yet they have 
forgotten to demonftrate. Befides, that they were able 
to quote a miracle in confirmation of their opinion, 
which was wrought, not during the time of their meeting to 
determine their judgment, but a confiderable time 
before, is no proof that they were infpired, or guid- 
ed by an extraordinary infallible influence to draw 
from it a certain and juft conclufion. Any minijler 
of Chrift, though not an apoftle, nor infpired, nor 
guided by a fupernatural energy, might certainly have 
drawn from it the inference which they did ; and we 
know that miracles, performed in the days of Chrift 
and his apoftles, can be adduced by us now^ in fupport of 
many doctrines. Nor was there any thing extra- 
ordinary, as you would infinuate, in their declaring 
that their decifion had appeared good to the Holy 
Ghoft. It evidently refers to its according with his 
revelation in the Old-Teftament fcriptures as quoted 
by James, and with the miracle which he performed 
upon Cornelius and his houfe, and not to any new and 
fupernatural communication. But what Is there in this 
which may not now be afferted by the minifters of Chrift, 



3*2 



Letter, XVII. 



as Is obferved by the learned and judicious Whitaker*, 
€t if, like this affembly, they decree and determine no- 
u thing but from fcripture, and if they (hall examine all 
" queflions by the fcripture, and mail follow the voice 
** of fcripture in all their decrees ?" In (hort, not only 
do the apoftles and elders fay, that it feemed good to 
the Holy Ghoft, but that it feemed good alfo to them, 
an expreffion which appears to be unaccountable, if 
they were either under an influence of fuggeftion or 
fuperintendence. Did any of the ancient prophets ever 
employ this language, " Thus faith the Lord, and thus 
" fay we i*' And if it was the Holy Ghoft alone who 
now fpake by the apoftles, and decided the queftion, and 
if they gave an infallible decree only as his minifters or 
inftruments, and with a confcioufnefs of his infpiration, 
how could they reprefent it as feeming good to them 
diftinft from the Spirit ? Neither, then, from this, nor 
any other circumftance, has it yet appeared that this 
affembly was infpired, while, on the contrary, it feems 
manifeft, from the considerations which have been men- 
tioned, that they were left to the guidance of their own 
prudence and fagacity, and the common influences of 
the facred Spirit. 



LETTER XVIII. 

SIR, 

The fifteenth of the Acts once appeared to you a 
ftrong hold, in which you could fit in fafety and fub- 
fcribe yourfelf a Prefbyterian, but you have been induced, 
it feems, to capitulate to Independents, becaufe you 
have been Jed to perceive that the cafe which it records 
was extraordinary, and affords no precedent for courts 

* See his Controv. iii. Quaeft. vi. 



Letter XVIII. 



3*3 



of review. Your reafons for adopting fuch a conclufion 
were the following. 

i ft, You obferve, p. 38. that the members at Jerufalem, 
as well as the rulers, are reprefented as ail uniting in the 
decifion which was formed on the queftion appealed * ; 
and, in like manner, when that decifion was tranfmitted 
to Anticch, it was the multitude (ver. 30.), plainly- 
meaning the church at large, that was gathered together 
to receive it. u This furely," you add, " favours much 
" more of the Independent, than of the Prefbyterian 
" form of government. " It is yet however to be proved 
that the members from Antioch united as judges in this 
decifion. A nd though all the members from Antioch had 
been prefent when the decifion of the affembly at Jerusa- 
lem was delivered, all that could be inferred would be 
merely this, that the people have a right to hear the 
determinations of a fuperior court. 

2dly, You remark, that " there was fomething more 
" in this cafe, which made it obvioufly very different 
" from the Prefbyteries or Synods of modern times. We 
" have not, in this paflage, an account of reprefentatives 
M affembled in convocation from a variety of different 
" churches, where a certain number is effentially neceffary 
" to conftitute what is termed the court : we have 
" fimply an application from one individual church to 
" another, refpe&ing a contefted queftion that occur- 
4i red, and that had been fuggefted by perfons profefTedly 
<( coming from that church to which the application was 
" made." On this let it be obferved, that the preceding 
reafoning was not intended to prove that the afTembly at 
Jeiufalem refcmbled either a modern Prefbytery or Synod, 
but only that it conflituted an ecclefiaftical court dijlincl 

* This certainly can never be confidered as an appeal, but only 
a reference, for no contrary fentence was given at Antioch, from 
which any proteft or appeal was made to Jerufakm. 

D d 



314 



Letter XVIII. 



from that at Antioch, and to which the latter was fubor- 
dinate. It is not contended that we find in it the model 
of either of thefe reprefentative courts, but that it exhi- 
bits a raoft decided evidence of the fubje&ion of one court 
of ordinary minifters tothe authoritative review and fuper- 
intendence of another. Since it is adduced, of courfe, only 
to eftablifh the general principle of fob ordination to courts 
fuperior to an individual congregation, and fince no 
argument is brought from it for the particular form of 
Prefbyterian courts, the objection under confideration 
muft be wholly irrelevant. Befides, it is to be remem- 
bered that the reference was not from one Chnftian 
church to another. Though the matter was referred to 
the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem, it is not faid that it 
was referred to them as the minifters of Jerufalem. And, 
as was before remarked, fince it is granted by your 
brethren that more than a fimple advice was given, if 
it be affirmed that the minifters and church of Jerufalem 
exercifed an act of authoritative power over the church of 
Antioch, unlefs it can be proved that the former were 
infpired, confequences will follow from it, fubverfive not 
merely of Prefbytery, but even of Independency. If 
none but the minifters of the church in Jerufalem were 
applied to, then the minifters of a parent-congregation 
may be folicited by another congregation to decide what 
fhall be taught and pra&ifed among them, in any cafe 
of difficulty, where they cannot themfelves agree. But 
is not this to admit the principle of fubordination to a 
court fuperior to the elderfhip of a particular congrega- 
tion ? and is it not better that the court, to which this 
fubordination is to be yielded, fhould be compofed of the 
minifters of feveral churches than only of one congrega- 
tion ? And if the members as well as minifters of the 
church at Jerufalem judged in the reference from An- 
tioch, does it not follow, as was before noticed, that one 
Tabernacle-church may fit in judgment on the affairs of 



Letter XVIII. 



3*5 



another ? Might not the church in Glafgow determine 
what fhould be taught in the church at Dundee, and the 
church at Edinburgh exert an authoritative power over 
both ? And will not this fubordination of churches una- 
voidably enfue from your reprefentation, unlefs you can 
prove that the church at Jerufalem was guided by a 
miraculous infallible influence, which is not now vouch- 
fafed to Chriftian congregations ? 

3dly, You affirm, that " the fubject of the appeal 
*' was peculiar. It has indeed," you fay, " been mat* 
" ter of difpute, whether the queflion refpe&ing the 
" liberty of Gentiles related to all converts to Chrif- 
" tianity, or only to thofe who were converted to Chrif- 
" tianity from among fuch as were previoufly religious 
tf profelytes. It is not here necefFary to enter into that 
" difcuffion : it is fufficient to obferve that whether it 
" be underftood to refer to the one or to the other, it 
*' was a queftion of very extenfive importance at that 
" time to the Chriftian world ; a queftion of fuch a kind 
" too, that no fimilar one can now occur, and which 
" only needed once to be decided, efFedlually to fettle the 
" difpute at every fucceeding period. " 

The queftion which was difcufTed in this ecclefiaftical 
court was certainly not of more general or firiking im- 
portance than others which have been examined in many 
modern, uninfpired, ecclefiaftical courts. Will any In- 
dependent maintain, for inftance, that the doBrines of 
grace, which, in the language of the Father of our glo- 
rious Reformation, are the artlculi Jlantts aut caden- 
tu ecclefia e. the points upon the reception or 
rejection of which the church' muft ftand or fall), 
and which were difcufTed fo fully in the Synod of 
Dort, were not of equal magnitude with the queftion 
which was confidered at Jerufalem ? It is manifeft 
alfo, as was before fhewn, that the manner in which 
this queftion was determined by . this aflembly, as 

Dd2 



316 



Letter XVIII. 



far at kail as is ftated in fcripture, was in no refpe& 
different from that in which queftions may now be 
decided in ecclefiaftical courts. May not they too, 
though not infpired, or miraculoufly guided, examine 
the fcriptures, and the extraordinary works performed in 
the primitive ages of the church, and by thefe regulate 
the judgments which they pronounce ? And it feems 
prefumptuous to affirm that no fimilar queftion can ever 
again occur, and that this queftion needed only once to 
be determined, effectually to fettle and filence the difpute. 
It is impoffible for any one pofitively to fay what dif- 
ferences of opinion may yet be difcovered refpecling the 
meaning of the facred oracles, and differences which 
may, as in former times, even upon important points, 
divide the world. With regard to this queftion, befides, it 
is worthy of being remarked, that even after its determi- 
nation by this affembly at Jerufalem, it ftill appears to 
have been agitated in many Chriftian churches. Paul, 
in his Epiftles to the Corinthians, Philippians, and 
Theffalonians, written at a much later period, com- 
bats precifely the very fame errors. Nay, what would 
have been unneceffary if this determination had been 
inspired, or the opinion of -twelve had been fuperior 
to that of one apotlle, he never once refers to it as 
infallible and finally decifive, but expofes their fallacy by 
reafoning only. In fine, if there was a queftion here 
which concerned the world, there was an affembly con- 
vened, partly compofed of men who were the miuifters 
of all the Chriftian churches in the world. And if a 
General Affembly, or (Ecumenic Council, judged in a 
matter of univerfal importance, may not the minifters of 
a number of different congregations meet like them, 
and judge authoritatively in matters which relate to all 
thefe congregations ? 

4thly, You allege, that " it feems pretty obvious that 
" when Paul fpeaks of going up to Jerufalem by reve- 



Letter XVI1L 317 

u lation, Gal. ii. 2. be alludes to the journey he took 
" upon this occafion ; and this furnilhes another linking 
" peculiarity in the cafe before us." In confirmation of 
this aiTertion, you refer us to a Note of M'Knight on 
the paffage, Thi aiTertion which you here make, 
amounts to nothing more than a hypothefis, fupport- 
ed merely by an ingenious conjeEtitre of a refpe&able 
commentator, which certainly mult be acknowledged to 
be too feeble a foundation for fo important a deduction. 
Something politive or explicit ought undoubtedly to be 
advanced before it can be allowed that this court was 
infpired. Beiides, you are fenfible that fo high an au- 
thority as that of the celebrated Paley has ventured to 
call in queftion the hypothefis of M'Knight, and Hated 
to it objections which have never yet been anfwered, 
and which cannot be overturned by the bare affertion of 
Mr. Ewing, " that he does not think them fufficiently 
" conclufive." " It may be doubted," fays he, " to what 
4i journey the words which open the fecond chapter of 
" the Epiftle (that to the Galatians), then fourteen years 
u afterwards J went up unto Jerufalem, relate. That 
M which bell correfponds with the date, and that to 
" which mult interpreters apply the palTage, is the 
" journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerufalem, when 
" they went thither from Antioch, upon the bufinefs of 
" the Gentile converts ; and which journey produced 
" the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth 
" chapter of the Acts. To me this opinion appears to 
" be encumbered with ftrong objections. In the Epiftle, 
" Paul tells us that he went up by revelation, chap. ii. 
" ver. 2. In the Ads, we read that he was fent by the 
" church of Antioch, chap. xv. ver. 2. This is not 
M very reconcileable. In the Epiftle, St. Paul writes 
" that when he came to Jerufalem, he communicated 
<c that gofpel which he preached among the Gentiles, 
" but privately, to them which were of reputation, 
Dd 3 



Letter XVIII. 



" chap. u. ver. 2. If by that gofpel be meant the im- 
" munity of the Gentile Chriftians from the Jewifh law 
" (and I know not what elfe it can mean), it is not 
" eafy to conceive how he mould communicate that 
" privately, which was the fubjecl: of his public mef- 
" fage. But a yet greater difficulty remains, viz, that 
" in the account which the Epiftle gives of what pafled 
" upon this vifit at Jerufalem, no notice is taken of the 

deliberation and decree which are recorded in the 
" Acts, and which, according to that hiftory, formed 
fc the bufinefs for the fake of which the journey was 
" undertaken. The mention of the council and of its 
€t determination, whilft the apoftle was relating his pro- 
H ceedings at Jerufalem, could hardly have been avoided, 
" if in truth the narration belong to the fame journey. 
* ( To me it appears much more probable that Paul had 
" taken fome journey to Jerufalem, the mention of 
€i which is omitted in the Acts. Prior to the apoftolic 
<{ decree, we read that Paul and Barnabas abode at 
" Antioch a long time with the difciples*. Is it un- 
€i likely that during this long abode, they might go up 
(t to Jerufalem and return to Antioch ? Or would the 
46 omiffion of fuch a journey be unfuitable to the gene- 
" ral brevity with which thefe memoirs are written, 
u efpecially of thofe parts of St. Paul's hillory which 
" took place before the hiftorian joined his fociety f ?" 

But admitting that this mafterly reafoning could be 
©verthrown, and that Paul, when he tells us that he 
went up by revelation to Jerufalem, refers to his going 
up as a commiffioner from Antioch, what is to be inferred 
from this extraordinary incident ? That the afTembly to 
which he was to go, was to be actuated either by a 
miraculous influence, or guided by a fupernatural fuper- 
intending energy ? No, affuredly. The degree of gifts 



* ACts xiv. 38. 



f Horae Paulina?, p. 195. 



Letter XVIII. 319 

poffefled by this aflembly for the decifion of the queftion, 
and the manner in which they were to determine it, muft 
be learned from other circumftances. Perhaps the court 
was to be divinely infpired, or perhaps it was to be 
directed only by common prudence, and the ufual aids 
of the facred Spirit — and the defign of the Spirit in 
fuggefting it to Paul to go up to Jerufalem, and to fubmit 
the caufe to the apoftles and elders, even as ordinary 
minifters, might be to point out to his church, in future 
times, a pattern for them to follow in difficult cafes. 
None of thefe however can be deduced from the fuperna- 
tural admonition of the Spirit, for this might have been 
given on either fuppofition. I maintain, therefore, that 
you are not entitled to infer, from this circumftance, 
that the aflembly, to which the apoftle was to refer the 
bufinefs, was either infpired, or infallibly directed ; and 
that there is equal reafon for believing that this bufinefs 
was fubmitted to a fuperior court, even of uninfpired 
minifters, to exhibit a clear and fatisfa&ory example of the 
manner in which important and difficult queftions were 
thenceforth to be determined in the Chriftian church. 

" Obferve," fay you, 5thly, " the very peculiar circum- 
" flanks in which the church at Jerufalem flood, from its 
" beinggthe feat of the refidence of the apoftles. To 
" them was committed the important charge of teaching 
" the difciples all things whatsoever they fliould obferve. 
" At this time it is very queftionable, if any part of the 
" New-Teftament fcriptures was committed to writing. 
" At any rate, we know that none of the Apoftolic 
" Epiftles had yet any exiftence ; far lefs were they 
« collected as we have them now, for the benefit of 
" Chriftians at large, and for their direction in any cafe 
4C of difficulty that might occur. This certainly placed 
M the church at Jerufalem in a fituation altogether 
" peculiar. The apoftles then occupied the room that 
" the New-Teftament fcriptures do now. It was a$ 



320 Letter XVIII. 

" proper to confult them perfonally at that tune, as it 
<c is for us now to have recourfe to their writings to 
M decide upon any point or New- Teftament worfhip. It 
" is true, Paul was at Antioch, and he undoubtedly 
" poffeffed infpiration and apoftolic authority as well as 
" the reft. But, on that occafion, the pertons who 
" taught that doc/trine refpe&ing the necefiicy of cir- 
I* cumcifion came from Judea, the feat of the reft of the 
" apoilles. It is pretty apparent from ver. 24. that thefe 
" perfons reprefented them as favouring their views. In 
" this fituation,Paul muft have had an authority at leaft pa- 
i( ramount to his own alleged in oppofition to it. Nothing 
" in this cafe could give fuch perfect fatisfac/tion, as the 
" united decifion of the apoilles when aflembled together,' 5 
It is readily conceded, that the church of Jerufalem 
flood, at that period, in very peculiar circumftances, but 
not fo peculiar as you would infinuate. Though the 
New-Teftament fcriptures were not then completed, and 
though many references were made to the apojiles who 
refided at Jerufalem, as to matters of doctrine, I muft 
again tell you, that I cannot fee why you affirm that 
they were made alfo to the whole Gf the Chriftians 
who dwelt at Jerufalem. If thefe references Required 
infpiration for their determination, mod of the£hriftians 
at Jerufalem could no more decide upon them than the 
churches from which they came. And if they did not 
require it, and yet were fettled by authoritative fentences 
from the apoftles, the common members at Jerufalem 
had no more right to pafs them upon other churches 
than the members at Corinth, or Ephefus, or Rome had. 
Let it be allowed then, that the apoftles, till the New 
Teftament was completed, were ufually referred to, while 
they remained at Jerufalem, as the final arbiters of reli- 
gious controverlies — what follows ? That, when they 
delivered thefe decifions, they were always infpired ? 
Such a conclufion would be a begging of the que/Hon^ or a 



Letter XVIII. 321 

taking for granted what neither you nor any other 
mortal can prove. It would be faying that God never 
fuffered them occafionally to afcertain his mind from the 
Old-Teftament fcriptures, and from any miraculous works 
which he had previoufly performed, but guided them 
always by a fupernaturai influence, which is too pre- 
fumptuous, I mould think, for any imperfect creature 
to affirm. It is fafer to determine this point by the 
fa6t, as related in fcripture, than, with the Ariftotelians 
of old, to lay down a hypothefts, or fuppofition of our own, 
and, taking it for granted \ endeavour to accommodate to it 
this particular fact. Attending then to this fad, and to 
what is recorded of it, I mufl once more declare, that 
however the apoftles a&ed in other references, when they 
lupplied the place of the New-Teftament fcriptures, they 
do not appear to have acted by infpiration in the prefent 
inftance. The decifion which they pronounced, feems to 
have been the fruit of their examination of the Old- 
Teftament fcriptures, and attention to fome former 
miracles which had been wrought, and not of any fuper- 
^natural fuggeftion. At the fame time, it is granted 
that in other inftances where infpiration was neceffary, 
they would a£t under its influence, and be guided by its 
dictates. Your attempt to (hew that if infpiration had 
been requifite, Paul was not fufficient to have determined 
the controverfy, was confidered in the preceding Letter. 

Your lad, however, is your favourite argument, for 
you fay, p. 44. " What has always appeared to me the 
" mod decifive proof that this paflage affords no coun- 
" tenance to modern Prefbytery, arifes from the iflue of 
" the decifion the church at Jerufalem pronounced, on 
" the queftion that was laid before them. They not 
" only fend their decifion to Antioch, but to Syria and 
" Ciltcia, ver. 23. ; and we learn from chap. xvi. ver. 4. 
" when Paul and Silas went out on Paul's fecond jour- 
<s ney, they delivered in the different cities the decrees 



322 Letter XVIII. 

* c for to keep, that were ordained of the apoftles and 
11 eldgrs which were at Jerufalem. Here, thoie who 
€t fupport Prefbytery from this paffage, feem inextricably 
u involved in a dilemma. It muft be allowed thefe 
" decrees were either binding or not. If they were not, 
" then the whole was merely an application for advice, 
" and the paffage has no connection with Prefbyterial 
" authority. If they were binding, then it follows that 
<c the church at Jerufalem ordained decrees which were 
" obligatory not only on the church at Antioch, but on 
« every other church in the Chrillian world, though 
" they had not the fhadow of a reprefentative in that 
" meeting where the decrees were formed. Surely this 
" puts it beyond the pofTibility of a doubt that the cafe 
" was an extraordinary one, and confequently forms no 
u precedent for other churches. If it was not extra- 
" ordinary, let us fee to what it will lead. It ought 
€t then to be imitated ; that is, one church mould frame 
" decrees to which it is entitled to require obedience 
** from every other church in the Chriftiaif world. 
" What church is entitled to claim fuch a prerogative ? — 
tf But it is unneceffary to purfue the argument farther, as 
'* the inference implies what is im practicable and abfurd." 

To the formidable argument founded on this dilemma 
I would briefly Hate, that, I apprehend, Prefbyterians 
may fafely grant that an authoritative power was exer- 
cifed by this affembly, and yet none of your momentous 
confequences will follow. What though its decrees were 
binding upon Syria, and Cilicia, and Lyftra, and Ico- 
nium, as well as Antioch, will it ever be proved from 
this, that they were the dictate of infpiration ? No, verily. 
Were there not apoftles in this council, as has been 
already faid, who, acting even in their uninfpired capa- 
city, were univerfal paftors, and had a right to ordain 
decrees which were binding upon all the churches on earth, 
as well as to preach to all of them, as ordinary rninifters, 



Letter XVIII. 325 

according as opportunity offered ? How, of courfe, can 
it be demonftrated from the univerfally obligatory power 
of the decrees that they muft have been fupernaturally 
fuggefted, when the apoftles, who were members cf the 
affembly which paffed them, even as uninfpired min\Jlcrs y 
had a right to deliver them not only to thefe, but to all 
other churches ? Neither, then, from this, nor any- 
other circumftance, does it appear that the decifion 
which was pronounced by this council was an infpired 
decifion, or that the members of it were guided by any 
fuperior influence than their own judgment and prudence, 
and the common aids of the facred Spirit. 

Is it faid, that no power properly juridical was affumed 
by this affembly, and that therefore no precedent can be 
pleaded from it for the power of modern courts of review ? 
It is replied, that the power of determining what was to 
be preached as the means of falvation was claimed by it, 
than which, undoubtedly, none can be confidercd as a 
higher or more important exercife of authority. Their 
determination, moreover, as has been noticed, is called a 
decree, and the very fa& of their pafling fuch a decree, 
implied in them the power alfo of punifhing all who 
refufed to fubmit to it. But if this is not to be con- 
fidered as ecclefiaftical power, I know not what is en- 
titled to the name. 

Thus, I conceive, the three general pofitions have 
in fome meafure been eftablifhed. Firft, That there 
was a court at Jerufalem of Chriftian minifters, who fat 
and determined in a reference which was made to them 
from another court at Antioch : Secondly , That this court 
at Jerufalem delivered not merely to that at Antioch a 
general advice, but an authoritative decifion : And thirdly , 
That, in this decifion, they feem neither to have been di- 
rected by miraculous fuggeftion nor extraordinary fuper- 
intendence, but by the ufual aids of the facred Spirit, 
which are common to faithful minifters in every age. 



324 Letter XVIII. 

If this however was the cafe, and a court at Antioch 
was fubjedt to the review of a court at Jerufalem, is it 
not a clear and fufficient warrant for thofe courts of re- 
view which exift among Prefbyterians ? It muft certainly 
be of little importance to object that this court at Jeru- 
falem did not refemble a Prefbytery or Synod, fince it 
was unqueftionably compofed of minifters of Chrift act- 
ing in an ordinary and common capacity, and different 
from thofe from whom the reference was prefented. 
This, I prefume, is the grand point in difpute ; and 
fince it is eftablifhed, it authorizes, I apprehend, courts 
of review to any extent that the circumftances of the 
church may be found to require. If the principle of the 
fubordination of courts be demonftrated, it is evident 
that for the fame reafon that it is proper to fubjeel: the 
rulers of a particular congregation to the review of a 
Prefbytery, if the decifion of the Prefbytery is not fatif- 
fa&ory, it is lawful and defirable to refer it to the deter- 
mination of a greater number of minifters, met as a Synod, 
or to a (till greater number, as an AfTembly. 

With regard to the fentiments of the primitive church, 
a diverfity of opinions has exifted. Mr. Ewing has 
quoted, in proof of their Independency, an unfubftan- 
tiated affertion of Mofheim, without a fingle document 
to confirm it *• In oppofition to this however, were we 
to abide merely by the reports of the learned, it might 
be fufficient, on this point, to refer Independents to the 
authority of Lord King, whom they fo much commend, 
and who, in his Inquiry into the Conftitution of the 
Primitive Church, part i. chap. viii. has not merely, 
like Mofheim, afTerted, but fully proved, that courts of 
review, in the early ages, were common in the church. 
Many others alfo might be mentioned as of fimilar fenti- 
ments. Few inftances indeed can be adduced of Pref- 



* See Appendix to his Le&ure, p, 90. 



Letter XVIII. 



3*5 



byteries or Synods before the time of Cyprian. But for 
this a very fatisfactory reafon can be afligned. Moft of 
the writings of the fathers, before that period, are loft ; 
and in the few which remain, the only hints which arc 
•delivered refpe&ing the government of the church arc 
entirely incidental. " The reafon," fays King, p. 148. 
** why we find not more Synodical decrees of the three 
u firft centuries, comes not, from that they judicially 
u determined none, or required not the obfervance of 
" them ; but from that* either they were not careful, 
" or the fury and violence of the times would not permit 
H them, to tranfmit them down to their fucceflbrs ; or 
" through the length of time they are loft, and fcarcc 
" any thing befides the names of fuch Synods arc now 
m remembered, and of multitudes, neither names nor 
" decrees are to be found. But yet there is enough 
" efcaped the fury of perfecution, and the length of time, 
" to convince that thofe Synods did decree thofe things 
u which they judged expedient for the polity, discipline, 
" and government of thofe particular churches that 
" were within their refpe&ive provinces, and required 
" them to be obferved by all the members thereof." 
Befides, as, on a former part of the fubjecl:, it was 
fhewn that Independents have never been able to adduce 
any plaufible proof, of the right of the people at large to 
judge and vote in church-bufinefs, from the writings of 
the fathers prior to the time of Cyprian ; how can they 
object to quotations from this their favourite author, 
which Preibyterians bring forward, to prove the fubordi- 
nation of judicatories in ecclefiaftical government ? 

In reviewing the writings of the fathers, we find that 
they acknowledge that fuch courts of review exifted in 
the church from the earlieft period. Cyprian, for inftance, 
in his Sixty-fixth Epiftle, written, according to the 
calculation of Mar {hall, A.D. 249-, not only fpeaks of 
* Synod and its authoritative decrees, but represents 



326 Letter XVIII. 

thefe as having obtained among his more ancient prede- 
ceflbrs. " Graviter commoti fumus ego et collegae mei 
" qui prsefentes aderant, et comprefbyteri noftri qui 
" nobis affidebant, fratres cariffimi, cum cognovnTemus 
€t quod Geminius Victor, frater nofter, de feculo excedens, 
" Geminium Fauftinum prefbyterum tutorem teftamento 
" fuo nominaverit, cum jam pridem in concilia epifcoporum 
€i ftatutum fit, ne quis de clericis et Dei miniftris tutorem 
" vel curatorem teftamento fuo conftituat u e. " It 
c< was a great concern to me and to my colleagues who 
(i happened to be prefent with me, and to our fellow- 
<c prefbyters who fat in judgment along with us, when 
" we learned that our brother Geminius Victor, at his 
M death, had appointed Geminius Fauftinus, a prefbyter, 
M executor of his will, fince it hath long ago been 
" determined in a Council or Synod of bi/hops, that no one 
M mould nominate in his will, a clergyman, or a minifter 
" of God, to be an executor, or a guardian." And 
again, as a proof that this Synod was not merely con- 
fultative, after making fome obfervations upon the neceflity 
of requiring the minifters of the church to devote them- 
felves entirely to their facred function, he adds, " Quod 
" epifcopi anteceffores noftri religiofe confiderantes, et 
u falubriter providentes, cenfuerunt ne quis frater excedens 
u ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret ; ac fi qui 
u hoc faceret, non offerretur pro eo, nec facrificium pro 
** dormitione ejus celebraretur, neque enim apud altare 
" Dei nominari meretur in facerdotum prece, qui ab 
" altari facerdotes et miniftros voluit avocare. Et ideo 
" Victor cum contra formam nuper in concilio a facerdo- 
tibus datam, Geminium Fauftinum prefbyterum aufus 
" fit tutorem conftituere, non eft quod pro dormitione 
** ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine 
" ejus in ecclefiae frequentetur, ut facerdotum decretum 
6( religiofe et neceffarie factum fervetur a nobis, fimul et 
u ceteris fratribus detur exemplum, ne quis facerdotes 



Letter XVIII. 



527 



" et miniftros Dei, altari ejus, et ecclefice vacantes ad 
" feculares moleftias devocet." That is, " Which the 
5* bifnops, our predeceffors, religioufly conHdering, de- 
" creed that no brother, at his death, fhould name a 
" clergyman an executor to his will ; and if any one 
H fhould do fo, there fhould be no offering for him, nor 
* facrifice prefented for his repofe, for he who would 
11 call off from the altar its priefts and minifters, does 
m not deferve to be mentioned in the prayers of the 
" prieft at the altar. Wherefore fince Victor, againft the 
" canon which was lately delivered upon this oecafton in 
" a council of bifhops, has prefumed to appoint Geminius 
** Fauftinus, a prefbyter, his executor, there is no reafon 
" why an oblation fhould be offered for his repofe, nor 
" the cuftomary prayers of the church prefented on his 
" behalf, both that this Sy nodical decree may be obferved 
" by us, and an example may be given to the reft of 
H our brethren, that no perfon may call to a fecular 
" employment the priefts >and minifters of God, whofc 
*f whole time and care fhould be devoted to his altar. " 

Another of thefe authoritative Synods or Councils is 
mentioned by Cyprian, in a paffage formerly quoted 
from his Sixty-feventh Epiftle. Speaking of Novatian, 
he fays, M Et cum ad nos in Africam legatos mififfit, 
" optans ad communicationem noftram admitti, hinc a 
" concilia plurimorum facer dotum qui praefentes eramus fen- 
" tentiam retulerit, fe foris effe coepiffe, nec poffe a 
" quoquam noftrum fibi communicari," &c* : i. e. H And 
" when he had fent his meffengers to us in Africa, de- 
'* firing to be admitted to our communion, he received 
" this fentence from a Council of many minifters who 
" were then affembled, that he had begun the rupture, 
" and could not be admitted by any of us to our com- 
u munion." Here we fee a Council or Synod, of many 
minifters, exercifing an authoritative power over all the 
churches to which they belonged, and decreeing that 
E e 2 



328 Letter XVIII. 

this man mould not be received into their communion. 
And again, in the fame Epulle, talking of wicked and 
arrogant men, he fays, " Ex quibus cum Marcianus efie 
" cceperit, et fe Novatiano conjungens, adverfarius 
" mifericordise et pietatis extiterit : fententiam non 
" dicat, fed accipiat, nec fic agat, quali ipfe judicaverit 
" de codegio facerdotum^ quando ipfe fit ab univerlis facer- 
" dotibue judicatus:" u e. " Since Marcian hath begun 
H to be one of thefe, and joining himfelf to Nova* 

tian, hath proved himfelf to be an enemy to mercy 
" and piety, let him not pretend to pronounce any 
" fentence, buUvlet him receive it ; nor let him be- 
" have like one who is to judge the 'whole college of 
" bijl-ops, fince he himfelf has been judged by all of 
" them. 7 ' Here he fpeaks of a whole college of pallors 
as pronouncing fentence of excommunication upon a 
heretic ; and if we attend to another paffage in this 
Eoiftle, we {hall fee that the college included the mini- 
Tiers of many churches. " Therefore," fays he, " dear 
" brother, the very numerous body of minifters is fo united, 
<{ that if any of our college become heretical, the reft 
u a IE ft, and, like good and companionate {hepherds, 
*f gather the fneep of the Lord into his fold." 4< Idcirco 
(t enim, frater carilfime, cop'iofum corpus ejl facer dotwrn 
** concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copu* 
48 latum ut fi ex collegio noftro hacrefin facere," <s'c. 

In his Fifty-ninth Epiftle likewife, addreffed to Fidus, 
and fubfcribed by Cyprian, and fixty-fix minifters who 
had fat in council with him, he fpeaks of a decree which 
they had made, and which was confidered as binding by 
all the churches to which they belonged. And at the 
fame time they find fault with one Therapius, becaufe, 
in opposition to their decree, he had rafhly reftored to 
the communion of the church, Victor, a prefbyter, be- 
fore he had exhibited fufticient evidences of penitence \ 
and fay, that though they might have inflicted upon 



Letter XVIII. 329 

Therapius a higher punilhment, they would content 
themfelves with a reproof and admonition. " Legimug 
" (fays Cyprian to Fidus), literas tuas, frater carifiime, 
¥ qaibus fignificafli de Victore quodam prefbytero, 
ct quod ei, antequam po3nitentiam plenara egiffet, et 
u Domino Deo, in quern deliquerat, fatisfecifTet, temere 
" Therapius collega nofter immaturo tempore et prse- 
" propera feitinatione pacem dederit. Qux res nos fatis 
u movit, recefTum elfe a decreti noftri audtoritate, utante 
u legitimum, et plenum tempus fatisfaclionis, pax ei 
" concederetur. Sed iibrato apud nos diu confilio, fatis 
" fuit objurgare Therapium collegam noftrum, quod 
" temere hoc fecerit, et inftruxifle, ne quid tale de caetero 
¥ faciat." That is, " We have perufed your Letter, 
" deareft brother, wherein yon intimate to us the cafe 
" of Vi&or, once a prefbyter, whom our colleague 
H Therapius rafhly admitted before he had exhibited 
" fufficitnt marks of penitence, and made fatisfa&ion to 
" that God againfl whom he had offended. Which 
" circumilance troubled us not a little, becaufe, over- 
" looking the authority of our decree, he had been reftored 
" to communion before the lawful term of fatisfa&ion 
Jf had expired. But having long and fully confidered 
" the matter, we refolved to content ourfe/ves with repri- 
" manding our colleague Therapius for his precipitate 
" conduc~t, and with acimonifhing him to guard againft 
" fuch meafures for the future." 

This fame council, moreover, which had thus authori- 
tatively determined refpefting the time during which 
offenders mould be fufpended from the communion of the 
church before they were re-admitted, pronounces, at the 
fame time, a decifion refpecling the time at which infants 
mould be baptized. " Quantum vero (fays Cyprian) 
" ad caufarn infantium pertinet, quos dixifti intra 
" fecundum vel tertium diem, quo nati funt, conftitutos 
u baptizari oca Gportere, et confiderandum efle legem 
E e s 



33° 



Letter XVIII. 



" circumcifionis antique, ut intra o&avum diem eum qui 
11 natus eft baptizandum et facrificandum non putares ; 
" longe aliud in concilio noftro omnibus vifum eft. In 
" hoc enim quod tu putabas effe faciendum, nemo con- 
* fenfit, fed univerfi potius judicavimus nulli hominum 
" nato mifericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam." 
That is, " Now, as to the cafe of new-born infants, who 
«* mould not, according to your opinion, be baptized with- 
" in the fecond or third day after their birth, but mould 
u rather wait the time appointed by the law for circumci- 
4{ fion, and fo not be baptized nor devoted to the fervice 
" of God till the eighth day, I muft tell you that we were 
w all here afiembled in council, of another mind ; and 
" no one of us came into your fentiments ; but on the 
** contrary, we all concluded, that the grace and mercies 
" of God were to be denied to none who mould come 
w into the world*." And afterwards they exprefs, if 

* " The unanimity" (fays Marfhall, in his Notes upon Cyprian, 
-which I have juft now feen) " wherewith this queftion was 
" carried (at this early period of the church), (hews that 
u infant-baptifm, even at this time, was no novel ufage : there 
" was no manner of difpute, whether infants fhould be bap- 
" tized ; but whether before the eighth day or not : to which 
M the unanimous refolntion was, that the grace of God fhould be 
" denied to none." It is hoped that the reader, for the fake of 
the obfervation, will pardon the little digreflion contained in this 
note. And it is trufted that thofe who are defirous of afcertaining 
the truth upon this fubje£t, and have not an opportunity of per- 
illing the more laborious Treatifes of Wall and Williams, will not 
be difpleafed with the author, if he recommend to their attention, 
at leaft in fupport of infant-baptifm, the very ingenious pamphlet 
of Peter Edwards, who, for eleven years, was an Antipedobaptift 
rainifter, but renounced that connection; the DiiTertation of Pirie, 
and his Defence of that DilTertation; the manly reafoning of the 
late venerable Dr. Erfkine, in his Sermon upon that fubjett, in 
the fecond volume of his Difcourfes ; and Three Sermons upon 
Baptifm, by Dr. Lathrop of America, which, while they are pecu- 
liarly adapted, from their admirable perfpicuity, to the plained 



Letter XVI1L 331 

poffible in (till ftronger terms, their convi&ion that thil 
ordinance mould be adminiftered to infants at any period. 
This determination however appears to be as authoritative 
as their former decifion, as to the cafe of the lapfed, and 
feems to have been equally binding upon all their 
churches. 

Firmilian, bifhop of Cefarea in Cappadocia, in the 
Latin tranflation of his Letter, which Cyprian has given 
us among his own Epiftles, affirms that fuch Councils or 
Synods were common alfo at that time in the province 
of LefTer Afia. After telling us, as was before mentioned, 
that elders alone prefide in the church, and baptize and 
ordain, and that heretics are not entitled to perform thefe 
functions after they apoilatize, he adds, " Quod totum 
" nos jampridem in Iconio, qui Phrygian locus eft, collecti 
" in unum convenientibus ex Galatia, et Cilicia, et 
" ceteris proxime regionibus confirmavimus, tenendum 
w contra haereticos firmiter et vindicandum i.e. "All 
" which many of us, affembled together in Icomum, a 
" city of Phrygia, from Galatia, Cilicia, and the neigh- 
B bouring regions, determined to maintain and affert 
M againft the pretentions of heretics *." And in an- 
other part of the fame Epiftle he informs us, that they 
had at leaft an annual meeting of this authoritative Synod 
or Council. " Qua ex caufa (fays he) neceffar io 
" apud nos fit, ut per Jingulos annos feniores et prsepofitt 

readers, from the folidity of reafoning and acntenefs of judgment 
which they difcover, are worthy of the perufal of the mofl enlight- 
ened. Thefe Difcourfes have lately been republifhed in Scotland, 
and fell for a trifle. 

* " Dionyfius of Alexandria," fays Marfhall, " in his Third 
" Epiftle on Baptifm, as reprefented to us by Eufebius, book vu. 
" chap. vii. tells Philemon, to whom he wrote, that the Africans 
« were not the firft introducers of baptizing heretics ; but that 
" the bimops, aflembled at Iconium and Synnada, had long before 
" determined the queftion"— which, too, proves that this council 
was authoritative. 



33* 



Letter XVIII. 



" in unura conveniamus ad difponenda ea qua; curze 
" noftrae commiffa funt i. c. M Wherefore we find it 
" neceffary that our elders and rulers affemble every 
" year, for fettling thofe things which are committed 
" to our care." Epift. lxxv. 

In fine, omitting the accounts of many other Synods, 
which might eafily be produced from the writings of 
Cyprian, we are informed by Eufebius, in his Eccle- 
iiaflical Hiftory, book vii. chap. xxix. that, in the reign 
of Aurelian, a Synod of many minifters met at An- 
tioch, and excommunicated Paul of Samofatcna from 
their different churches. " Kxtf ( oy (fays he) TiXivrutxs 

ti UVTlCftUCtV Ul^oVlUC, Mgffiyos TYi$ V7T6 TCV OVQCCVOt XOiQoXiXtjS 

€i ixxXy.o-ic&s M7TGKV}£VTTiTzi." And in this Synod we are 
told, in the preceding chapter, that there were, among 
Gthers, Firmili an ^bifhop of Caefarea, now mentioned ; 
Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, paftors of churches 
in Pontus ; Helenus, minifter of the church at Tarfis ; 
and Nicomas, minifter of the church in Iconium ; with 
Hymeneus, bifhop of Jerufalem ; Theotecnus, bifhop of 
Cefarea in Paleftine, near Jerufalem ; and Maxim us, 
bifhop of Boitra. Thus, then, it appears that authori- 
tative courts, fupcrior to the governors of a particular 
congregation, are not only clearly authorized by reafon 
as neceffary and ufeful, and fan&ioned by fcripture as 
divinely appointed, but exifted even in the earlieft period 
of the Chriftian church ; and confequently that the 
fcheme for which Independents contend is not lefs con- 
trary to the reprefentations of antiquity, than it feems 
to be to reafon and fcripture. 

I have now finifhed what I intended when I began thefc 
Letters — a Vindication of the Prefbyterian plan of church- 
government. That I have refuted all the arguments or 
objections of Independents I do not pretend, for as each of 



Letter XVIII. 333 

their congregations is unconnected with the reft in point 
of adm in i it ration, there may be as many ecclefiajlkal conjli- 
tut ions, and as many diver/ities of fentiment with regard to 
government among them, as there are congregations. But 
who would profefs to detail or examine the whole of thefe 
fyftems ? Befides, as it is another of the principles of 
moil of our modern Independents, that written con- 
fefiions, exhibiting their view of the meaning of fcrip- 
twe, are unlawful, it is extremely difficult to afcertain the 
tenets even of a few of them, on this, or any other point 
©f doctrine. This principle certainly has its own ad- 
vantages, and muft be particularly fuitable to the plan 
of thofe who are frequently changing their religious 
fentiments. It is extremely difadvantageous however to 
the public at large, who can have no certain way of 
difcovering their tenets, while, in another point of view-, 
it is no lefs injurious to themfelves, as it frequently 
obliges the mod impartial inquirers to commit involun- 
tary miftakes in attempting to flate their principles. If, 
in the preceding pages therefore, there be any miftakes 
with regard to the fentiments of Independents, it is 
again requeued that they may not be afcribed to a defign 
wilfully to diftort or mifreprefent them. Againft this, 
as far as the author was aware, he has endeavoured to 
guard, and he fnould be forry indeed, if, in the oriew 
which he has delivered of any doctrine or argument, 
he had yielded to its influence in the flighted degree. 
And confcious as he is that he has attempted, as far as he 
could afcertain the truth refpecting their principles, to 
know and to (late it, if, in an;/ inftance, he has erred, 
he muft beg leave, without any intention invidioufly to 
fneer at this particular principle, to fet it down to the 
account of their wanting any public and written con- 
feflion — a peculiarity however which may be followed, at 
lead in the conviction of Independents, with advantages 
which will more than compenfate fuch evils. 



APPENDIX I. 



ON THE 

JEWISH SYNAGOGUES & SANHEDR1N. 

the argument from the conftitution and proceed- 
ings of the Jewifh Synagogue and Sanhedrin, illuftrated 
in Letter VI. It has been objected that they were 
merely human Inventions, not introduced till after the 
Babylonilh captivity, and therefore could not be defigned 
as a pattern to Chriftian churches. That they were in- 
troduced only at this period, is a point which has been 
warmly, and with confiderahle plauMbility, contefled by 
many diftinguifhed ecclefiaftical writers of antiquity, 

It is highly probable however, that fynagogues, to 
a certain degree, were coeval with the fettlement of the 
Ifraelites in Judea. It was the office of many of the 
Levites, who were exempted from agriculture and other 
fecular employments, and were difperfed through the 
various diftricls of the land, not only to offer facrifices, but 
to inftrudfc the people in the truths of religion ; for this 
maxim is mentioned by Malachi, chap. ii. 7. as efta- 
blifhed in every age of their church, that " the prieft's 
" Hps mould keep knowledge, and they mould feek the 
" law at his mouth ; for he was the meffenger of the 
" Lord of hofts." But how could they fo conveniently 
communicate this inftru&ion as by colle&ing the people 
into fynagogues or affemblies ? It would feem alfo, that 
without fome fuch convocation or affembly, from the 
very beginning, the Sabbath could not have been ob- 
ferved by them ; for it is exprefsly faid, Lev. xxiii. 3. 
that the Sabbath was to the Ifraelites a holy convoca- 



On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 335 



tion, or for a holy convocation, in or among all their 
dwellings. If no fuch convocation was obferved then, 
throughout the whole nation, till after the captivity, there 
was no public worfhip except at Jerufalem — a circum- 
itance which miift appear highly extraordinary, when 
we reflect that they were the only vifible church of God 
in exiftence at that period. Nor will it be eafy to ac- 
count for the following defcription of the ravages of the 
enemies of the Jews, probably at the time of the capti- 
vity : " They have deftroyed all the fynagogues of God 
" in the land," y-KO Vtt "Hjntt Vd, Pfal. lxxiv. 8. 
where, fays a refpe&abie critic, not only from *T#% 

convenire fecit ad locum tempufque flatutunt, is properly tranf- 
lated fynagogues, in which the people were ftatedly to 
meet for religious worfhip, but the words and ]>HK!2, 
all the fynagogues — in the land, being added, prevent us from 
explaining this exprefiion, as fome do, only of the temple, 
and holy places belonging to it, at Jerufalem. 

Farther, as fynagogues, however they might be alter- 
ed after the captivity, appear to have exifted many 
ages before ; fo, the fanhedrin, or court of feventy elders, 
though it alfo might be altered at this period, was raoft 
probably of much earlier origin. The learned Selden 
fays, that nothing is more certain from the facred fcrip- 
ture, than that it was inflituted the fecond year after the 
children of Ifrael came out of Egypt. " Ita nihil certius 
" eft quam earn, ut e fcriptura diximus, anno exitus 
" fecundo tribuendam He quotes alfo Archbifhop 
Ufher, Capellus, Perkins, Temporarius, Codomannus, 
Scaliger, Helvicus, Calvifius, Buntingius, Maflkus, and 
many others of the moil diftinguifhed ecclefiaftical anti- 
quaries, as attributing to it an origin nearly fimiiar. 
Lightfoot likewife, with Grotius, Lowman, and many 
of the moft illuftrious names in biblical literature, might 



* Selden de Synedriis Hebraeomm, p. 631, 



336 



Appendix I. 



here be adduced as of this opinion, together with a long, 
lift of Jewifh do&ors, as appears from their Talmuds. 

The inftitution of this court feems plainly to be pointed 
out in Numb. xi. 16, 17. " And the Lord faid unto 
44 Mofes, Gather unto me feventy men of the elders of 
" Ifrael, whom thou knoweft to be elders of the people, 
" and officers over them ; and bring them unto the 
44 tabernacle of the congregation, that they may Hand 
44 there with thee. And I will come down, and talk 
44 with thee there : and I will take of the fpirit which 
" is upon thee, and will put it upon them ; and they 
44 mall bear the burden of the people with thee, that 
44 thou bear it not thyfelf alone." " The general defign 
44 of the inftitution of thefe feventy," fays the judicious 
Lowman, 44 was, as is here faid, that they might hear the 
44 burden along with Mofes, that he might not bear it 
44 alone. This fare cannot be meant of the common 
" and ordinary adminiftration of juftice, which had been 
" provided for juft before in the Jethronian prefectures. 
44 As far the^ as they were to aflift Mofes in matters 
44 judiciary, it could only be in thofe greater matters, 
" which, as referved caufes, were to be brought before 
f* Mofes ; or fuch difficult queftions as were referred by 
M appeal from the inferior judges. In this fenfe, this 
" court of the feventy elders will be a conftitution not 
44 much unlike the (ancient) parliament of Paris, fo far 
44 as that was a court of law. But this was not the only 
44 end for which this court was inftituted. The imme- 
** diate dccafion of its inftitution was the complaint of 
44 Mofes on the murmuring and fedition of the people 
44 and the difpleafure of God ; that fire was fent to con- 
44 fume them that were in the uttermoft parts of the 
44 camp. It is in anfwef to this complaint of Mofes on 
4i this occafion, that the Lord faid, Gather unto me feventy 
46 men of the elders of Ifrael — that they may J and with thee ; 

and they Jhall bear the burden of the people with thee } that 



On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 337 

thou bear it not thyfelf alone. We fee plainly that 
¥ thefe feventy were to be co-adjutors to Mofes in his 
jM councils, how to anfwer the people's complaints, and 
" to advife what would be beft to do on all occafions, 
" efpecially of greater difficulty ; to prefer ve peace and 
** good order among the people, and to prevent thofc 
" mutinies which would likely prove fatal to the whole 
" nation, if not remedied by fome means or other. In 
" this view," he adds, " the feventy elders will appear 
" to be defigned not only as a (landing court of law and 
V equity to affift Mofea as judge in caufes of greater 
" confequence, and in appeals, but to affift the judge 
" with their advice upon every occafion ; this was 
" properly to bear the burden of the people with Mofes, 
4< that he might not bear it himfelf alone. For now the 
" judge would not bear all the envy or ill-will of the 
« people when diffatisfied or uneafy with any part of the 
«< admin iteration, for^the common people, though they 
know very little of the reafons of any adminiftration, 
<c are yet apt to think every thing wrong that does not 
* c pleafe them, or which is attended with difficulties to 
" themfelves or the public. Now a council of feventy 
" perfons, of the moil approved wifdom and integrity, 
" would at leaft fhare this burden among them all, 
" inftead of throwing the whole on one man. And it 
" would be moreover an eafe to the judge's own mind, 
" and make him more refolved in any council to be taken 
" or executed, when it mould be with the advice and 
" approbation of a multitude of counfellors, in which 
there is wifdom and fafety. And, finally, it was 
" proper to give authority and refpec! to fuch orders as 
" mould be made by advice of perfons whom the people 
** themfelves had approved and chofen as eminent for 
* c their wifdom and integrity. Confider then this court 
" as a Handing fenate always at hand, or as a conftant 
" privy-council to the judge, and we have a moil wife 

Ff 



338 



Appendix I. 



" provifion for the eafier and better government of the 
i( whole nation ; and this will make a confiderable part 
" of the ftates-general of the united tribes*." 

In this rational and mafterly account then of the 
feventy, we have not only an excellent view of the end 
of their inftitution, but a very fat is factory proof of the 
neceffity of their continuance in every fubfequent age. 
If fuch co-adjutors were neceffary to Mofes for the ends 
here fpecified, much more to the judges and kings who 
fucceeded him, of whom none furpaffed, and but few 
equalled him in knowlege and fagacity. In this account 
too, as well as in the reprefentations of fcripture, we have 
a complete refutation of the affertion of Vitringa f , that 
the feventy were intended not to judge, but merely to 
be witneffes and infpe&ors of the actions of Mofes, and, 
in this manner, prevent any odium which he might incur 
from any part of his work. " Nonne hoc commodifiime 
u ita intelligitur, ut Mofen liberarent magna invidiam 
" parte, fuaque ilia pluralitate, uti propiores actionum 
" Mofis teftes illius modi murmurationes populi impe- 
" dirent aut compefcerent ?" What need was there that 
the Lord Jhould take of the Spirit, and give it to them for 
this purpofe, if they were only defigned to be witneffes 
of his conduct ? or could their performing the part of 
witneffes amount to the full import of that very energetic 
expreffion, of bearing the burden of the people along with 
him ? 

That this court might fometimes be difcontinued 
during the laxer periods of the Jewifli government is 
indeed probable. It would be too much however, from 
this, to fuppofe that it totally ceafed after the days of 
Mofes. There feems to be a firong allufion to it in 
Deut. xvii. 8, 9, 10. " If there arife a matter too hard 

lor thee in judgment, between blood and blood, be- 

* Lowman's Civil Government of the Hebrews, p. 1 69. 
f See his Differtjde Syned. Hebrxor. p. 569. 



On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 339 



" tvveen plea and plea, and between ftroke and ftroke, 
44 being matters of controverfy within thy gates ; then 
46 (halt thou arife, and get thee up into the place which 
44 the Lord thy God (hall choofe ; and thou (halt come 
" unto the priefts the Levites, and to the judge that 
H mall be in thofe days, and inquire ; and they mall mew 
44 thee the fentence of judgment. And thou malt do 
44 according to the fentence which they of that place 
44 (which the Lord mall choofe) mall fhew thee, and 
44 thou malt obferve to do according to all that they 
4/4 inform thee," EsV. Now, that the priefts and judge, 
here mentioned, could not be, as Vitringa fnppofes, only 
ordinary jftjfcfts and judges, or fmgle perfons, is probable 
from this, that though priefts and Levites refided in every 
city, they Were not competent to give the decifion 
required ; but the people, in whatever part of the land 
they lived, were to come up to Jerufalem, and ftri&Iy 
fubmit to the determinations of the priefts and judge there, 
under pain of the moft dreadful penalties: ver. IT, 12. 
But if the priefts and Levites competent to decide on 
thefe matters, were to be found at Jerufalem only, they 
muft certainly " have been invefted with extraordinary- 
powers ; and when we attend to what was before ftated, 
it feems moft likely that they were no other than the 
feventy elders, with the prieft or judge who was their 
prefident. This court, in fine, though difcontinued for 
a feafon, prior to the reign of Jehofhapbat, feems to have 
been revived by this prince ; who defcribes the object for 
which it was inftituted, in almoft the very terms ufed in 
Deuteronomy. By this court, alfo, Jeremiah was probably 
tried and acquitted : Jer. xxvi. 

It is certainly not conclufive to argue, that becaufe 
the court of the feventy is not mentioned by that parti- 
cular name after the days of Mofes, it muft have ceafed 
with him. It might as well be alleged, that though, from 
its being affirmed that in Chrift there is neither male nor 
Ff z 



Appendix I. 



female, women may be admitted to the Lord's fupper, yet 
as there is no account in the New Teftament of a woman 
partaking of this ordinance, no woman partook of it in 
the primitive church. It will be faid, perhaps, that the 
writings of the early fathers bear teftimony to this faft. 
But Jofephus, Philo, and Maimonides, who may pro- 
perly be denominated the Jewifh Fathers, no lefs fully 
atteft the exiftence of this court. Or is it contended 
that fuch a court was certainly not in ufe in the days 
of the judges, becaufe it is faid, Judges xxi. 25. that 
u becaufe in thofe days there was no king in Ifrael, every 
i: man did what was right in his own eyes r" We re- 
ply, that this court, according to the opinion of the 
accurate Lov/man, being defigned only for the decifion 
of higher matters, and more difficult and interefting ccn- 
troverfies, was not properly concerned with the common 
adminiftration of the laws of juftice y and that it might 
with more propriety be afTerted that they had no judges 
at that time in the gates of their cities, to whom this 
belonged as their peculiar care, than that they rrad no 
ianhedrin, which was not immediately concerned in thefe 
matters. Yet we know from Deut, xvi. 18. that fuch 
judges were to be appointed by the Ifraelites, after their 
iettlement in Canaan, in every city, and fuch judges alfo 
we have reafon to believe they had at this very period. 

We thus fee that the fynagogue and fanhedrin are 
not to be accounted mere human inventions. But even 
though it were granted that they were not introduced 
till after the Babyloniih captivity, it feems ft ill to follow 
that if they were not founded upon a direct divine com- 
mandment, they were at leafl indirectly warranted and 
encouraged by the divine word. The inftitution of fyna- 
gogues was defigned for improving the people in the 
knowledge of the law, and was a fulfilment of the divine 
injunction, that fince the prieft's lips were to keep 
knowledge, they were to feek the law at his mouth, 



On the Jewish Synagogues, Sec. 341 

Befides which, as is proved in the preceding Letters, it 
received the approbation of Jefus himfelf. And with 
regard to the fanhedrin, it was evidently founded on the 
commandment of God to the Ifraelites (Deut. xvi. 18.), 
M to make to themfelves judges and officers in all the gates 
" of their cities, which the Lord their God gave them 
" throughout their tribes a commandment which ap- 
pears to have authorized them not only to appoint as 
many judges in their particular cities as they found to be 
neceflary, but^ alfo to eftablifh a fuperior court of judges 
in their chief city, by which the fentences of the inferior 
courts might be reviewed, and judgment pronounced in 
matters of peculiar difficulty or importance. 

Do Independents further afTert, that thefe were not 
eccldiaftical, but only civil courts, and, of courfe, that 
we are not entitled to argue from the government which 
obtained in them, to that which is to exift in the Chrif- 
tian church ? It is replied, that the fynagogue being 
defigned for the religious inftruclion of the people, and 
its privileges and punifhments being fpiritual (in fo far 
as the Jevvifh ceconomy admitted of this), it muft have 
been principally, if not entirely, an ecclefiaftical inftitu- 
tion. The reafon why the blind man (John ix.) was 
caft out of the fynagogue, viz, his profeffion of faith in 
Clirift, was purely ecclefiaftical : and our Saviour him- 
felf tells his difciples, that the fame punifhment would be 
inflicted on them for a fimilar fault. Nor is it lefs plain 
that the fanhedrin, though it was empowered to take 
cognizance of civil, was appointed alfo to judge of eccle- 
fiaftical matters. Thofe who appealed to it, were re- 
quired to hearken to the prieft as well as to the judge, 
Deut. xvii. ; and when revived by Jehofhaphat, 2 Chron. 
xix. it was authorized to determine in the matters of the 
Lord as well as in the king's matters. The account 
likewife of the manner in which excommunication was 
performed by them in a particular inftance, as recorded 
Ff 3 



342 



Appendix I. 



in Pirke Rabb. Eliefer, cap. xxxviii. (hews that this 
ceremony, though attended fometimes with the privation 
of civil rights, was alfo an ecclefiaftical punilhment. 
" Ezra, Zerobabel, and Jofhua," fay the Jews, " aiTembled 
" the whole congregation in the temple of the Lord ; 
" and they brought three hundred priefts, three hun- 
" dred trumpets, and three hundred books of the law, 
" and as many boys; and they founded their trumpets; 
" and the Levites, Tinging, curfed the Samaritans in the 
" myftery of the name Jehovah, and in the decalogue, 
" and with the curfe of the fuperior houfe of judgment, 
" and likewife with the curfe of the inferior houfe of 
" judgment, that no Ifraelite mould eat the bread of the 
" Samaritans, that no profelyte mould be received from 
" them, and that they mould have no part in the refur- 
" reflion of the dead." " Quid turn fecerunt Ezra, Zero- 
" babel et Jehofhua ? Congregaverunt totam ecclefiam feu 
" caetum populi in templum Domini et introduxerunt 
M trecentos facerdotes, et trecentos adolefcentes (feu 
" difcipulos minores) quibus erant in manibus trecentae 
" buccinae, et trecenti libri legis. Hi clangebant ; Le- 
" vitas autem cantabant et pfallebant ; et excommunica- 
" bant Cuthasos per myfterium nominis Tetragrammati, 
** et per fcripturam defcriptam in tabulis legis, et per 
" anathema fori fuperioris feu coeleftis, et per anathema 
" fori inferioris feu terreftris, ita ut nemo Ifraeli- 
" tarum unquam in pofterum comederet buccellam 
4{ aliquam Cuthaeorum. Hinc dicunt quicunque come- 
" dit carnem Cuthaei, is vefcitur quafi carne porcina 
" Cuthaeus quoque ne fieret profelytus, neque haberet 
" partem in refurreftione mortuorum, juxta illud quod 
M fcriptum eft, Non ad vos fimul nobifcum attinet injlaura* 
" tio domus Dei nojiri : neque in hoc neque in futuro 
" feculo." Buxtorf, too, explains the ejection from 
their fynagcgues to be a cafting out from their holy 
affemblies, and as correfponding to the excommunicatioQ 



On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 343 

fpoken of in 1 Cor. v. which furely muft have been the 
a& of an ecclefiaftical court *; Selden makes it imply 
at lead an exclufion from fellowfhip in holy aiTemblies, 
and confiders it as equivalent to that excommunication 
which, according to Tertullian, exifted in his days in the 
Chriftian church f. Ludovicus Capellus, in his Speci- 
legio upon John ix. 22. affirms that the Jcwifh excom- 
munication by Niddni was an ecclefiaftical cenfure, and 
excluded from a communion in holy things, and infi- 
nuates the fame of the other modes of excommunication. 
Goodwin, in his Mofes and Aaron, book v. chap. 1. 
fpeaking of the Jewifli ecclefiaftical court, fays, that to 
the members of it belonged the power of excommunica- 
tion, and that it was a representative church. " Hence," 
fays he, " is that (Matth. xviii. 17.) die ecchfa — 
" tell the church. " The famous Bertram, moreover, in 
his book de Repub. Hebrseor. lib. vii. thinks that the 
Jewifh excommunication by Niddui was fimilar to our 
fufpenfion from the facrament, and that their excom- 
munication by Cherem anfwered to our excommunication 
from the church. And Grotius, in his Annotations on 
Luke vi. 22. affirms that their excommunication re- 
fembled that of the ancient Druids, who excluded thofe 
who were under it from the public facrifices — " inter- 
" dixerunt facrificiis." On the whole, it may be re- 
marked that in the twenty-four cafes in which excom- 
munication was infli&ed (mentioned by Buxtorf, Lexi- 
con, p. 1304. 1305. — Selden de Jure Nat. et Gentium, 
lib. iv. cap. viii. — and Joh. Coch. in his Annotations in 
Excerpt. Gem. Sanhedrin, cap. ii. p. 147.), there were 
feveral in which not only civil and external injuries, but 
religious fcandals, were the reafon of their infliction. One 

* Sec his Lexicon Chald. Talmud, et Rabbin, edit. 1639, 
p. 827- 828. 

f See his Treatife de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. iv. cap. ix, 



344 



Appendix I. 



caufe, was the defpifmg of any of the precepts of the law of 
Mofes 9 or ftatutes of the Scribes ; another, the mention- 
ing °f name of God rafhly, or a vain oath ; another, 
the tempting of others, or prefenting to them occafion to 
profane the name of God ; another, making them to eat 
holy things without the temple ; another, the preventing of 
them from fulfilling the commandments ; another, a prefent- 
ing a profane offerings according to Buxtorf, or a fickly 
animaly according to Coch. ; another, a prieft's not fepa- 
rating the gifts of an oblation^ &c. ; in all of which inftances, 
as well as others which might be ftated, it is plain that it 
was not civil injuries, but religious fcandals, that were 
the grounds of the excommunication, and consequently 
that the fynagogue and fanhedrin, which pronounced 
this excommunication, mud certainly be viewed as eccle- 
fiaftical courts. 

Thus, then, it appears that the fynagogue and 
fanhedrin, whatever connection they might have in 
another view with civil matters, muft be confidered 
as ecclefiaftical courts — that tbey were inftituted, if 
not upon explicit divine warrant, yet with the exprefs 
permifiion and approbation of the Deity — and that 
the aliufion of our Saviour, in Matth. xviii. to thefe 
Jewifh courts, whatever of them is intended, fully war- 
rants the deduction of Prefbyterians from this paffage, 
that fimilar courts mould exift alfo in the Chriftian 
church, and the government benvefted in their hands, 
unlefs it can be proved from other pafTages, that it is not 
merely ecclefiaftical rulers in particular, but the members 
of every Chriftian congregation in general, who are now 
to govern the church of God, 



APPENDIX IL 



REMARKS on a VIEW of SOCIAL 
WORSHIP, & c . 

BY 

JAMES ALEXANDER HALDANE. 

Since the preceding Vindication of Prefbytery was 
written, a book, by the author now mentioned, has been 
publifhed in defence of Independency. Expe&ing to 
find in it an abler or at leaft a fuller defence of the 
principles which are here controverted than is contained 
in the publications of MefTrs Innes or Ewing, I read it 
with avidity, but muft confefsthat I have been completely 
difappointed. For any additional argument which it brings 
forward, it might, as far as I can judge, have remained 
unpublifhed, without any material injury either to the 
reputation of the author, to the inftru&ion of the world, 
or to the particular caufe which it meant to ferve. It 
abounds with profeffions of candour, of the moft liberal 
charity, and of the moft ferious and difmterefted regard for 
truth. And yet while Mr. Haldane avowedly examines 
Prefbytery in general, and points out the evils which he 
thinks refult from it, he almoft uniformly improves it 
into a pretext for haranguing, chiefly againft our Efta- 
blifhed Church, and for exhorting her members to re- 
nounce her communion. Were there not other churches 
however, as the Relief, and Burgher, and Antiburgher, 
which are equally zealous in fupporting Prefbytery, and 
which, of courfe, equally merited his cenfure I How 



34 6 



Appendix II. 



comes it then, that, in his impartial and unbiafTed 
representation of truth, the evils which he fuppofes 
neceffarily to refult from this fcheme in general, mould 
be urged, with fuch zeal, as reafons for feparation, only 
from our Prefbyterian church ? Is the very fame plan 
worfe when found in the Church of Scotland than in other 
foeieties ? Befides, if he was induced by any particular 
reafons to be peculiarly zealous againft this Church, why 
did he not uniformly guard againft mifreprefentations, 
and ftric/fcly adhere to that truth for which he fo frequently 
profeffts his regard ? 

Of the juftice of this ftricVare, I mall at prefcnt mention 
one inftance, taken from a Note, p. 409. " Every one," 
fays he, " who dies in the communion of the Church of 
" England is committed to the grave as a dear brother, 
" of whofe refurre&ion certain hope is exprefled. Al- 
" though this is not the form in Scotland, yet the fpirit 
" of the conftitution is the fame. All are Chriftians, and 
u confequently all go to heaven." Now, let me afk 
Mr. Haldane on what ground he reds his affertion, 
that the conftitution of our church on this point, is the 
fame with that of the Church of England ; or that it is 
one of the articles of its conftitution, that all within its 
pale are Chriftians, and confequently that all of them 
go to heaven ? Is it not an opinion which (he has 
uniformly and publicly held, that neither in her com- 
munion, nor in that of any church upon earth, are all 
Chriftians, nor will aU go to heaven ; for if in the little 
company of the twelve apoftles there was one traitor, will 
there not be many fuch in more numerous foeieties i And 
does me not in her Confeffion of Faith, chap. xxix. feci, 
viii. exprefsly delineate, in terms which completely con- 
tradict his affertion, the character of thofe who are worthy 
communicants, and (hall finally be faved ? " Although 
" ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in 
" this facrament," (and here it is plainly fuppofed that 



Remarks, &c. 



347 



they may receive them in her communion as well as in 
that of other churches) " yet they receive not the thing 
" fignified thereby ; but, by their unworthy coming 
M thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the 
u Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant 
" and ungodly ferfons, as they are unfit to enjoy com- 
" munion with him, fo they are unworthy of the Lord's 
** table, and cannot, without great fin againft Chrift, 
u while they remain fuch, partake of thefe holy myfteries, 
u or be admitted thereunto. " Since it is affirmed then, 
in this and other paflages, that ignorant and ungodly 
men may be found in her communion, and that fuch arc 
utterly unfit to partake of the fupper, and consequently 
no lefs unfit for heaven, how could this writer, when 
confcious of thefe fadls, fo confidently afTert that it is 
the fpirit of her conftitution, " that all who die in her 
u connection go to heaven, and that of their happy re- 
u furre&ion no doubt can be entertained ?" 

It is remarkable alfo, that when he profefTes to be very 
ferioujly fearching after truth, and to prefent us with the 
evidence on both fides of the queftion, he fhould amufe 
himfelf and the reader with a filly and trifling fneer, while 
he pafTes very flightly over any thing like argument. This 
is particularly the cafe in p. 166. where he introduces a 
flale and inappofite witticifm of Dr. Hardy, late Eccle- 
fiaftical Profeffor in the Univerfity of Edinburgh. " He 
" was in the ufe," fays he, " of telling his fludents, 
" that Synod-fermons ufed formerly to be divided into 
" four heads, proving the divine right, i. Of Kirk- 
« fefiions — 2. Of Prefbyteries — 3. Of Synods — 4. Of 
" General Affemblies.^ — What a pity, faid he, that the 

preachers Ihould have forgot to have proved the divine 
M right of the Committees of Overtures and Bills !! ?? 
Now, on this it may be remarked that Independents can 
no more prove the divine right of their Committees, who 
inquire into the knowledge and character of any appli- 



348 Appendix II. 

cant for memberfliip, than Prefbyterians can eftablifh, 
from explicit expreffions, the divine right of the Com- 
mittees of Overtures and Bills. Dr. Hardy's fneer there- 
fore, if at all juft, muft fall with equal force upon thefe 
Independent Committees. Befides, as we have already 
attempted to fhew that Kirk-feflions, Prefbyteries, Synods, 
and General AfTemblies, are authorized by fcripture, 
and as Committees of Bills and Overtures confift 
only of certain members from the former, who are to 
prepare the bufmefs for more prompt decifion — as the 
fcripture enjoins alfo, that all things be done decently 
and in order, and as this plan appears often to be bed 
fitted for this end, what is there either ridiculous or re- 
prehenlible in the adoption of it ? Independents them- 
felves, as was now faid, appoint Committees, though no 
fuch inftitutions be fpecified in fcripture, and why may 
not thefe Prefbyterian Committees be likewife nominated, 
if conducive to the purpofes of general utility. It would 
certainly therefore have been more beneficial, had Mr. 
Haldane, inflead of quoting this very feeble witticifm, 
at lead, endeavoured, to anfwer a few more of the argu- 
ments produced in favour of Prefbytery, and to ftate fome 
more forcible reafons in fupport of Independency. 

In p. 54. he quotes with applaufe the words of one 
who fays, that he adores the fulnefs of fcripture ; and then 
adds, " This fulnefs, refpe&ing every thing connected 
" with religion, will be more evident the better w r e 
" underftand it. When we come to fpeak of the order 
" and difcipline of the firft churches, I hope it will 
" appear that no cafe can occur in a church of Chrift 
4i concerning which we have not fufficient directions in 
¥ the New Teftament. Thefe directions do not exclude 
t6 the exercife of prudence and difcretion. Wifdom is 
" neceffary to apply the laws of Chrift properly ; but 
" to ufe our wifdom in the application of laws, is widely 
" different from affuming a right to add to, or to alter 



Remarks, 8cc. 



349 



" them." Now, if It is here infinuated that every practice 
in a church of Chrift mud be enjoined by fcnpture in 
explicit terms, the affertion is inadmiffible, becaufe it 
fuppofes what is not only utterly impracticable, but con- 
tradictory to the acknowledged principles both of Prefby- 
terians and Independents. Is every part either of the 
order or worfhip in the churches of the latter exprefsly 
prefer ibed in the facred volume ? Is there any paffage, 
as was now ftated, that appoints a committee of the 
members of the church to examine the knowledge and 
character of any perfon who applies for memberfbip I 
or does it appear that this was done in any of the churches 
which are mentioned in the New Teftament ? Is there 
any paffage which authorizes Independents to ling hymns, 
or pa: phrafes of fcripture, in addition to the verfion of 
the Pfaims of David ? We are indeed exhorted by Paul, 
Col. iii. 16. as Mr Haldane obferves, p. 303. to fmg in 
pfaims, and hymns, and fpiritual fongs, but nothing 
certain can be deduced from this in fupport of that 
practice, for as all thefe names are applicable to the 
Pfaims of David, many of which are hymns and fpiritual 
fongs, the apoftle, for aught that can be afcertained from 
this place, might refer only to them *.- Omitting other 
practices which might be mentioned, is there aoy paffage 
which requires Chriftians always to (land while they fing ? 
Mr. Haldane indeed fays, p. 304. thatpraife is an imme- 
diate addrefs to God ? But fo alfo is prayer ; yet, like our 
Saviour, we may certainly either Hand and lift up our 
eyes to heaven, or fall upon our faces to the ground, or, 
like Paul, bow our knees to our God and Father. It is 
indeed farther faid, that Ifrael was exhorted to Jland up and 
blefs the Lord their God : Neh. ix. 5. It appears, how- 

* It is not intended by this to deny the propriety of finging 
fuch paraphrafes, but only to (hew that there is no exprefs warrant 
for the ufe of them from fcripture. 

Gg 



35° Appendix II. 

ever from what follows, that what the Ifraelites did when 
they flood up at that time, was to offer up a prayer, and 
not merely to fing a pfalm. Compare Neh. ix. from ver. 6. 
to the end. At any rate, the contrary will not be eafily 
proved. What argument then can be deduced for this 
practice of Independents from the prefent paffage ? Is 
it alleged notwithstanding, as is done by Mr. Haldane, 
that it is plain from Pfal. cxxxiv. i. that the Ifraelites 
mufl have flood when they fang to God ? It is re- 
marked in return, that it is evident from ver. 2. that 
it is the duty of prayer, and not of praife, which is 
there reprefented to be required from them : " Lift up 
" your hands in the fan£tuary," it is faid, " and blefs the 
" Lord." It is faid, moreover, that it is undeniable 
from Pfal. cxxxv. i, 2, 3. that the Ifraelites flood up when 
they fang praifes to God ; for they " who flood in the 
" houfe of the Lord, in the courts of the houfe of God," 
are there called to praife the Lord. Yet from any thing 
contained in thefe verfes, the Pfalmifl might call on thofe 
alone, who flood in the temple as fentinels or priefls, to 
praife the Lord, as he afterwards calls on the people at 
large, who did not fland in it, for thefe purpofes. But 
though he enjoins thofe who flood for thefe purpofes in 
the courts of the temple, and whom he afterwards deno- 
minates (ver. 19. and 20.) u the houfe of Aaron and 
%i the houfe of Levi," as he aifo enjoins (ver. 1.) the 
fervants of the Lord in general to do fo, whom he after- 
wards denominates (ver. 19.) " the houfe of Ifrael," 
what argument can fairly be drawn from this, to fhew 
that the Ifraelites at large flood when they praifed the 
Lord? Nay, even granting that thofe who (ver. 2.) 
flood in God's houfe were the Ifraelites in general, who 
flood in the outer courts of the houfe of the Lord at 
the time of the offering up of incenfe, and prayed to 
God — and alfo when they prefented their facrifices, what 
argument does this afford to prove that they flood like- 



Remarks, Sec. 



wife when they fang his praifes ? And, in fine, are we 
reminded that the church in heaven are defcribed as 
(landing before the throne (Rev. vii. <?.) when they offer 
up their praifes ? To this it is fufficient to reply in the 
words of his friend Mr. Ballentine, which he cites with 
approbation, p. 227. " The whole book of Revelation, the 
" epitlolary as well as the figurative parts, are written in a 
f* figurative manner.'* Is not this more probable, from 
the defcription (chap. viii. ver. 3.) of an angel as coming 
and (landing at an altar in heaven, having a golden cen- 
fer ; and to whom was given much incenfe, that he fhould 
offer it with the prayers of all faints ? And yet who would 
fuppofe that there is an altar in heaven, or incenfe, or a cen- 
fer ; or that altars mould be ere&ed in the church on earth, 
and that minifters, when they offer up the prayers of God's 
people, mould have incenfe and cenfers? On the whole, 
this idea is confirmed by the 1 ith and 12th verfes of the 
feventh chapter, following thofe quoted by Mr. Haldane, 
and informing us, that while part of the celeftial inhabitants 
Jland while they offer up their praifes, part of them alfo 
fall upon their faces P But would any Independent argue 
from this, that the members of their churches mould 
fomettmes fall upon their faces when they prefent their 
praifes *, though he is furely as much warranted to affirm 
this, as to affirm that they mould Jland> becaufe another 
part of the heavenly inhabitants are reprefented as {land- 
ing when engaged in that exercife ? But if the fcripture 
feems to point out no particular pofture for the per- 
formance of praife, nor no particular warrant for finging 
any other facred hymns or fpiritual fongs than the 
Pfalms of David, nor no precife example nor injunction 
for a committee, fimilar to that which is employed by 
Independents, to inquire into the knowledge and cha- 

* Is it faid, that what was uttered by thofe who fell on their 
faces was a prayer ? It is anfwered, that it was no more a prayer 
than what was fpoken by thofe who flood before the throne, 

Gg 2 



35 2 Appendix II. 

racter of thofe who apply For memberfhip ; nay, if for 
many other things which might eafily be mentioned, 
Independents have no exprefs directions in the New 
Teftament, though they do not hefitate to adopt them ; is 
it not incontrovertible, that if it be afferted that every the 
minuteft circumftance refpecting the order and difcipline 
of the church is explicitly revealed, a pofition is maintained 
which is not, and cannot be acted upon by any church 
upon earth ? It would appear then, that in many things 
Independents themfelves, as well as others, are obliged 
to act on the principle of expediency ; and yet there are 
none who are louder than they in reprobating this prin- 
ciple, and, among thefe, there are few who are keener 
than our author. 

It is granted indeed, that like every other principle, 
that of expediency may be perverted ; and that, when 
fo perverted, it mull be very prejudicial. Its abufe how- 
ever can never be a valid argument againft its utility. 
Though, when employed by wicked and defigning men 
to fet afide the great and fundamental principles of order 
and difcipline which are revealed in fcripture, it has been 
attended with evil, yet this will never prove that it may 
not be followed by good, when ufed to fupport inferior 
practices, which do not contradict but promote the former, 
though at the fame time they are not explicitly revealed. 
By many Independent churches, it is practifed in many 
inftances, and muft therefore, even in their opinion, be 
attended with advantage. 

The queftion, when the principle of expediency is to 
be followed, every Independent is as much bound to 
anfwer as the Prefbyterian is, unlefs he maintain that 
there is an explicit warrant in fcripture for every practice 
in their churches. An obfervance or practice indeed, 
though not exprefsly revealed, may be fafely adopted, 
whenever it does not contradict any of the eiTential 
principles of government, or when it is warranted by 



Remarks, &c. 



353 



other acknowledged general principles. Nor do we 
hefitate again to affert, that this principle is admitted 
and a£ted on by every fociety *. To follow the author 
through the whole of his inconfiftencies on the different 

* We may here notice, that this principle muft be applied to 
regulate the precife degree of frequency with which the Lord's 
fupper is to be celebrated, as we have already attempted to mew 
that it is not exprefsly revealed. See Note in p. 264. et fea. 
Mr. Haldane indeed endeavours to prove that it is to be received 
every Sabbath ; and argues that becaufe it is faid, I Cor. xi~. 20. 
that when the difciples came together, they ate the Lord's fupper, 
and in chap. xvi. 2. that they came together on the firft day of 
the week, they muft have obferved this ordinance every firft day 
of the week. But this argument proves too much ; for if they 
did eat the fupper every time they came together, they muft fre- 
quently have received it twice or thrice a-week at leaft, for it is to 
be prefumed that, like Independents, they might meet in a church- 
capacity on other days than Sabbath. Why then do not MelTrs* 
Haldane, Ewing, and Little, join in commemorating the death of 
Jefu»s when they and their churches come together into one place, 
for public inftru<ftion or private difciplinc, on the evenings of 
Wednefday, or Thurfday, or Friday ? 

It defcrves to be remarked alfo, that as the apoftle does not 
fay that the Corinthians always ate and drank in the name of 
the Lord when they were met in a church-capacity, how does 
Mr. Haldane know how frequently they did f ? or how can he 
affirm that they did fo weekly ? He tells us however, that it was 
thus frequently obferved by Chriftians in the firft and fecond cen- 
tury. But we have formerly mown, that the argument is as con- 
clufive in favour of daily as of -weekly communion. Befides, with 
what confiftency can this argument be ufed by one, yno, in the 
vtry book which contains it, decidedly protefts againft its admif- 
fion in religious difputes. " If any of the religious rites of any 
" party," fays he, p. 51. " be called in queftion, do they not uni« 
" formly endeavour to eftablifh thefe, by appealing to the prac- 
" tice of the primitive Chriftians ? Indeed fo far has this been 
" carried, that the practice of the three firft centuries after Chrift 
" has alfo been reforted to. This has opened a wide doer for 
H abufes. It goes upon the fuppofition, that, during that time, 
" the churches retained their original purity ; but furely we mav 

Gg3 



354 



Appendix II. 



fubjefts of which he treats, would neither be practicable 
within the narrow bounds of the prefent Appendix, nor 
connected with the principal defign of the preceding 
Letters. I (hall only point out, as fhortly as poffible, a 
few of his inaccuracies on the fubject of government , as 
this alone is the ground of thefe inquiries. 

In reviewing his fentiments on this topic, it is impoflible 
not to notice the very linking contradiction between his 
views and thofe of MelTrs. Ewing and Little. Mr. 
Ewing, as we have (hewn, p. 24. 25. 112. 113. moil 
pointedly affirms that every thing which is to be done, as 
a part of ecclefiaftical government and difcipline, is not 
to be done in the prefence of the people and only with 
their confent. Mr. Haldane, on the contrary, afferts, 
p. 153. and other places, " that the elders are to put 
" the laws of Chrift in execution, but only with confent 
u and in prefence of the church. " And one of the 
rules followed by Mr. Little in his Tabernacle-church, 
as quoted in the Narrative referred to, p. 14. is, that 
every thing mould be fubmitted to the vote of the mem- 
bers before it is finally adopted. Mr. Haldane, on the 
contrary, while he maintains that nothing fhould be done 
without their confent, and while he contends, p. 212. 
<s that every new member ought to be admitted by the 
*' unanimous voice of the church," objects very ftrongly 
to the practice of voting. " We have no inftance in the 
" fcriptures," fays he, p. 372. " of any thing in the 
u primitive churches being decided by votes. This 

u learn from the corruptions in the churches, even in the days of 
*' the apofties, that this was mod improbable. We are even ex- 
li prefsly warned upon this fubject, by being informed that the 
u myftery of iniquity was at work in their time.'* But if it opens 
a -wide door for abufe, as he here afTerts, to appeal to the practice 
of the churches, after the apofties, upon any queftion, why does 
Mr. Haldane, not only on this queftion, but on that of baptifm, 
p. 333. 334. exhibit a very ftriking inftance of this impropriety ? 



Remarks, 8cc. 



3S5 



" appears at all times unnecefiary, and can be attended 
" with no good effect." It is mantfeft then, that among 
three of the moll zealous of our Tabernacle Independents, 
there is a decided and important oppofition of fentiment, 
on matters, too, which affect fome of the firft principles 
of Independency. Might not Mr. Haldane then, in his 
very laudable folicitude for the purity of the church, 
have beflowed a portion of his flrictures and animadver- 
fions on his two erring brethren ; and, while he attempts 
to correct the errors of the members of our Eftablimment, 
have extended fome falutary cafh'gation to Meffrs. Ewing 
and Little, of whom the former has advanced an opinion 
fubverfive of Independency, and the latter has not fcrupled 
to avow a fentiment which, in Mr. Haldane's apprehen- 
fion, is hoftiie to its interefts ? 

To maintain, moreover, as Mr. Haldane here does, 
that every decifion in an Independent congregation ought 
to be perfectly unanimous, and that, when this cannot 
be the cafe, no determination fhould be made, feems 
completely ridiculous. Suppofe, as was remarked, p. 50. 
a cafe of difcipline to occur in an Independent church, 
in which a difference of opinion obtained how far a 
charge was diitinctly proved — that the majority are fully 
fatisfied that the perfon againft whom it is brought is 
guilty, and that the minority profefs themfelves of an 
oppofite mind ; nay, fuppofe that long and patient 
inquiry fhould be made into the matter, and that, as 
Mr. Haldane advifes, much fervent prayer fhould be 
employed, and that flill the members cannot agree — what 
will be the confequence ? A majority of ninety out of a 
hundred members, who are convinced that the perfon 
who is criminated is guilty, are not to inflict on him the 
merited punifhment, becaufe they cannot perfuade their 
brethren to adopt their views. Or if they do inflict it 
upon him, fince unanimity muft prevail among all who 
are affociated as an Independent church, the minority 



35^ Appendix ft. 

muft neceflarily feparate from the majority. In every 
inftance, of courfe, where the minority cannot be per- 
fuaded to think with the majority, and where the laws 
of Chrift muft be put in execution, a feparation mud 
take place, and new and more numerous Independent 
churches, from every new minority, muft continually be 
forming. And, indeed, combining this favourite principle 
of Mefirs. Haldane and Glafs with the affertion of Mr. 
Ewing (fee p. 113. and 114. of thefe Letters), that the 
members of a church may feparate from their brethren, 
and form new focieties, for difference of fentiment on the 
mereft trifles, we have another very impreflive and faithful 
reprefentation of the fchifmattc tendency of the Independent 
fcheme. Perfeft unanimity , fay MefTrs. Glafs and Haldane, 
muft be obferved in all the decifions of the church — votes 
muft be excluded ; and, till the unanimity can be fully 
attained, forbearance muft be exercifed, and the laws of 
Chrift muft not be executed. And when the period of 
this forbearance comes to an end, though the difference 
of fentiment be upon a point which is trifling, the mino- 
rity, fays Mr. Ewing, are at perfect liberty, and are in 
duty bound, fince unanimity is requifite in every church, 
to turn away from the majority, and eredt themfeives 
into a new congregation*!!! 

* Since every member of an Independent congregation is ad- 
mitted by the elder, who prefides at the time, to (late his opinion, 
and as nothing more is exprelfed by a vote, I cannot fee on what 
confident grounds MefTrs Haldane and Glafs can object to voting. 
As the members of the churches, too, mentioned in fcripture, 
according to them, voted in the election both of Matthias and the 
firft deacons, and as Independents ftill vote, in many congregations, 
in the election of their office-bearers, why may they not vote in 
other decifions ? In a word, mould it be faid that the reafoning 
contained in the preceding Letters cannot be conclufive, becaufe 
it proceeds upon the falfe fuppofition that all the members of an 
Independent congregation are allowed to vote in every bufinefs 5 



Remarks, &c. 



357 



The views which Mr. Haldane gives of the nature of 
the power which is claimed by Piefbyterians are, like 
the ftatements of many other Independents, unfair and 
exaggerated. He calls it, for inftance, like his predeceffor 
Mr. Lockier, p. 158. " human authority or coercion,'' 
and in p. 159. " compulfory power/ 3 It has already 
however been attempted to be proved (Letter II.), that 
no more authority, nor coercion, nor compulfion, is 
affumed by Prefbyterians than by Independents*; and 
that the Gnly difference between the two is this, that, 
among the former, the elders alone are intruded with the 

it is replied, that it can never be overthrown by this, for if they are 
not allowed to vote, they are undoubtedly permitted to exprefs their 
judgment, and only in as far as it accords with it can any propofal 
be carried. But in what refpects this privilege virtually differs 
from that of voting, or how the latter can be attended with worfe 
effects, I acknowledge that I am utterly unable to perceive. As 
Independents, though they allow the members to fpeak, do not 
finally determine till they are completely unanimous, might not 
the fame thing be done, even though a vote was taken ? 

* The fame power which Mr. Haldane fays, p. 372. line 21. 
M is in the church itfelf," and to which every member is fubject ; 
a power which authorizes them, as he tells us, p. 350. " if they 
" look to Chrift for direction, and form a deliberate judgment, to 
" act according to it againft an offending member, -whether he he 
'* convinced cr not:''' the fame power, we fay, is all for which 
Prefbyterians contend for their office-bearers. They admit too 
with him, p. 258. that tkefe office-bearers, who are rulers only 
under Jefus, have no more power to make laivs than Independents 
themfelves afcribe to their churches, They allow alfo, as much 
as Independents themfelves, that " rulers cannot require the 
u church, or any individual member, to fubmit to their decifions, 
" unlefs they can Ihew that the authority of Chrift enjoins fub- 
" million in that particular act." And at the fame time they 
maintain, that " if they look to Chrift for direction, and form a 
" deliberate judgment, they muft act according to it, whether 
" thofe who are under them are convinced or not," as Mr. Haldane 
declares, in the paffage now quoted, muft be done by the mem- 
bers of an Independent congregation to an offending brother. 



3j3 Appendix II. 

government, while, among the latter, though the elders 
are the nominal rulers, the people alio muft be confulted 
on every occafion. But this, as has at leaft been endea- 
voured to be eflablifhed in the Third Letter, is to 
conftitute the perfons who are appointed to be ruled, and 
who are far more numerous than the titular governors, in 
reality the rulers. And to talk of governors, as is done by 
this author, p. 262. and 263. ruling their congregations 
merely by preilding in their afiemblies, and by perfuading 
them to their duty, while they are totally unable to inflidt 
upon them any pumfhment if they refufe to comply with 
their requifitions, feems to be very abfurd *. 

* High indeed was the efteem which was formerly profefTed by 
eur author, and many of his friends, for the Rev. Rowland Hill, 
a man who once warmly patronifed them. No man however can 
fpeak more ftrongly in condemnation of the fyftem which they 
now profefs than this very writer, whom they certainly once ac- 
counted a man peculiarly diftinguifhed for candour and charity, 
" One extreme," fays he, p. 108. of his Remarks attached to his 
Journal, and addrejfed to our author, " generally produces another, 
" However I might be difpofed to vote for the reduction of the 
" Epifcopacy of the Englifh Church, yet I had much rather be 
" under the Right Reverend Fathers in God with us, than under 
" the jurifdictian of the Mofi Reverend Mothers in God among the 
" ftricler Independents. — Medio tutijpmus His." Again, fays he, 
p. 80. " To take a candid and general view of this mode of 
" church-difcipiine (that of the Church of Scotland), I am not 
" furprifed, allowing fomething for education, that every clafs of 
" Seceders mould have ftill adhered to her general rules. For, 
" admitting in the firft place, the jufl requifition of the choice of 
" ministers to reft: with the people, it is but confident that the 
" further management fhould in a meafure reft: with others. If 
" it be with the people to appoint, and toaccufe in cafe of mif- 
" conduit ; it is but reafonable that others fhould determine the 
" juftice of that accufation. If the total controul refts with thofe 
" that appointed him to the office, the rule is perfectly reverfed : 
<c Obey them that have the rule over you, and fubmit yourfelves ; 
" for they watch for your fouls, as they that rnufr give account : 
" that they may do it with joy, and not with grief ; for that is 



Remarks, &c. 



359 



It is obferved likewife by Mr. Haldane, p. 366. that 
W the idea of a church of Chrift fitting by its repre- 
" fentatives" (as the paftors or eiders have improperly 
been called) " has no foundation in fcripture — and that 
" all the directions given by the apoftles to the churches 
" refpecting difcipline were evidently addrefTed to the 
" whole church." In proof of this, he adduces what is 
faid by Paul to the church of Corinth refpe&ing the 
Jnceftuous perfon. But for an attempt at leaft to refute 

" unprofitable unto you : Heb. xiii. 17. For, fuppofing the con- 
" troul to be with the people, it is they that are to have the rule 
u over him, and he mud be admonijhed by them. He is neither 
" fhepherd, nor paftor, to watch over ; nor elder, to rule over 
" them ; nor bifliop, to overfee them : he knows nothing of 
" authority but by their permijfwn, and is perfectly the creature of 
" their caprice and confront. All difputes, therefore, under fuch a 
" frame of government, rnuft terminate in divifions. Now, in a 
" firiB Independent government,'* (and fuch a government it ap- 
pears exifts in all our Scotch Tabernacle-congregations, that of 
Mr. Ewing excepted) " in a variety of inftances, this fact is 
" principally proved, becaufe arbritration is wanting, and the 
" Prefbyterian government wifely provides for this arbitration." 

And, in mort, he remarks upon Heb. xiii. 17. that " fome 
" have fuppofed the word 'vyzopoct would have been better tranf- 
" lated by the fofter term, to lead or guide, than to rule. The 
" fofter," adds he, " the better, as tyranny is no more proper in 
" the minifter over the people, than it is in the people over the 
" minifter. Eut I judge we have here a diftinclion without a 
t( difference. When a man leads and guides, I think he may be 
« faid to rule ; though I confefs the word rule, and efpecially 
" when attended with that of fubmit, is as griping to the confe- 
" quential old ladies in a ftrictly Independent church, as is the 
" word obey, in the marriage-fervice of our Englifh Liturgy, to 
" many a female, when under the neceifity of promifing, for once, 
" what (he never means afterwards to perform !!" 

If the word 'viyu^ai here fignifies to lead, it means, as was 
proved, Letter II. to lead or guide in a way which implies the 
exercife of authority, though at the fame time not inconfiflent 
with the ufe of perfuafion. 



360 Appendix II. 

his very fuperficialftatement of this argument, as well as 
the more able objections of Mr, Cotton, the reader is 
referred to Letter VII. And as to his remark in that 
page, " that when the whole church joins in an act of 
" difcipline, it is calculated more to imprefs the mind of 
" the offender, to manifeft the obedience of the whole 
• to the laws of Chrift, and to create a greater abhorrence 
" of fin in the church, for thus paffing fentence on one 
" another, they condemn themfelves if they mould ever 
M act in a fimilar manner," it proves a great deal too 
much. On the fame principle, it would be better to 
admit all the lieges in a city to join in performing an act 
of civil juridical authority, than to commit that power 
to the magiflrates alone : for it might be urged, with 
equal plaufibility, that it is calculated more to imprefs 
*' the mind of an offender, to manifeft the obedience of 
m the community to the laws of the kingdom, and to 
" create a greater abhorrence of the crime in them, for 
" thus paffing fentence on another, they would condemn 
" themfelves if they fhould ever act in a fimilar manner." 
The fophiftry of this reafoning is obvious, whether applied 
to church or politics. And if the lieges of a city, by fub- 
mitting to the authority exercifed by their magiflrates 
when they inflict punifhment upon any offender, as really 
exprefs their obedience to the law, and their abhorrence 
of the crime, as if they themfelves, in any fenfe, had been 
judges — nay, if, by fubmitting to that power which pub- 
licly pronounces fentence upon another, they as incon- 
teftably condemn themfelves, if they fhould ever act in a 
fimilar manner, as if they had been magiflrates, is not the 
fame thing manifeft as to the members of the church ? 

Another pafTage brought forward by Mr. Haldane, to. 
fhew that the people are to be admitted in every matter 
of government to an equality of power, with refpect to 
judging, with the nominal rulers, is Matth. xviii. 17. 
And in confirmation of the arguments of Independents 



Remarks, &e. 361 

from this place, he fills up almoft ten pages of his book 
with a quotation from Dr. "Campbell, an author to whom 
he is not a little indebted ; and with very copious cita- 
tions from whofe Lectures on Church-hiftory, his friend 
Mr. Ewing, with the editors of the late Edinburgh 
Quarterly Magazine and Liverpool Repofitory, have fre- 
quently enriched their writings. For an examination 
however of the remarks of the Doctor, and of Inde- 
pendents in general, upon that celebrated paffage, fee 
Letter VI. There it is obfcrved, that by the church men- 
tioned in Matth. xviii. to which offences are to be told, 
Mr. Parker of New England, a very eminent Inde- 
pendent, honeftly allows that the firft time it occurs, it 
means exprefsly the anjhcratic part, or the elders : 
" Praecife partem ariftocraticam, id eft prefbyterium. ,, 
There, too, it is at leaft endeavoured to be proved, that, 
in Acls viii. the term church denotes the office-bearers, 
and they alone ; and that, even upon the interpretations 
of this place which have been given by the molt famous 
Independent writers, it is an argument for PrelLy- 
tery, and not for Independency, though it is urged by 
Mr. Haldane, with the reft of his brethren, as fupporting 
the latter only. Let us hear however what is faid by this 
diftinguiftied writer, whofe authority is quoted by Mr. 
Haldane, and under whole reafoning he feems more 
willing to fnelter himfelf than under his own, " Let it 
fi be obferved," fays he, as cited by our author, p. 148. 
" that our Lord gave thefe directions during the fub- 
" fiftence of the Mofaic eftablifhment ; and if we believe 
<s that he fpoke intelligibly, or with a view to be under- 
" flood, we muft believe alfo, that he ufed the word in 
" an acceptation with which the hearers were acquainted. 
" Dodwell himfelf law the propriety of this rule of in- 
" terpreting (Diftin&ion between Soul and Spirit, £sV. 
" feci, vii.) when he faid, < It very much confirms me 
" in my reafonings, when I find an interpretation of the 
H h 



362 Appendix II. 

" fcriptures not only agreeable to the words of the fcrip- 
" tures, but agreeable alfo to the notions and fignifica- 
" tions of words then received. For that fenfe which 
w was moil likely to be then underflood was, in all like- 
" lihood, the true fenfe intended by the Holy Ghoft 
" himfelf. Otherwife there could be no fecurity that his 
11 true fenfe could be conveyed to future ages, if they had 
'* been themfelves miftaken in it, to whofe underftanding 
<c the Holy Ghoft was then particularly concerned to 
M accommodate himfelf.' Now all the then known ac- 
M ceptations," fays the Do&or, " as I {hewed before, 
M of the name «xA>j««, were thefe two, the whole 
ts Jewifh people, and a particular congregation. The 
<c fcope of the place fufficiently mews it could not be the 
n former of thefe fenfes ; it muft therefore be the latter. 

What further confirms this interpretation is, that the 
u Jews were accuftomed to call thofe affemblies which 
<f met together for worfhip in the fame fynagogue by this 
<{ appellation, and had, if we may believe fome learned 
w men converfant in Jewifh antiquities, a rule of pro- 
** cedure fimilar to that here recommended, which our 
" Lord adopted from the fynagogue, and tranfplanted 
" into his church." Now admitting, as is obferved in 
Letter VI. the Doctor's remark, which Mr. Haldane 
quotes as one of the bulwarks of his fyftem, that the 
Jews were accuftomed to call thofe affemblies which met 
together for worfhip in the fame fynagogue by this ap- 
pellation, and allowing that they had a rule fimilar to 
that which is here recommended, a confequence very 
different from what is apprehended either by the Doctor, 
or the writer before us, appears neceffarily to follow. 
It feems unavoidably to refult from it, as was before 
proved, that, as in a Jewifh fynagogue, though the offence 
is told in the hearing of the members, it is thofe who 
are diftinguifhed by the name of rulers, and they alone, 
even without afking the opinion or confent of the mem- 



Remarks, &c. 365 

bers, that are to judge and determine. Such it was 
before evinced from the conceffions of Goodwin, who 
fays, that " there never could be lefs than three rulers in 
" any fynagogue, that a major vote might cajl it among 
" them and fuch alfo, as was eftablilhed from the 
authority both of Jofephus and Maimonides, were the 
perfons who adminiftered thefe Jewifh affemblies, and 
without foliciting the confent of the people. This quota- 
tion from Dr. Campbell therefore, inftead of fupporting 
this argument for Independency, appears completely to 
overthrow it ; and proves, that though the members of a 
Chriftian church, like thofe of a Jewifli fynagogue, may 
be allowed to hear the complaint which is prefented by a 
brother to thofe who are rulers againft one who offends 
him, it is the office-bearers alone, without the confent 
or concurrence of the members, that are to judge of the 
complaint, as it was they alone who judged of fimilar 
matters in a Jewifh fynagogue. 

It is affirmed by Mr. Haldane, p. 164. that by " the 
M whole church, " as it is tranflated in our Bibles, who 
are reprefented as joining in the decree of the apoftlea 
and elders at Jerufalem (Acls xv. 22.), members who 
had no official character are intended. But before this 
is admitted, it is requefted that what is mentioned, 
Letter XVI. p. 276. 277. may be anfwered. And if 
this mould be anfwered, it is begged that what is ftated, 
Letter VIII. may be fairly refuted, before any argument 
can be deduced from that paffage, for the right of 
members in the prefent day to judge in every matter 
of ecclefiaftical government. And, indeed, as Mr. 
Haldane exprefsly maintains that the decifion which was 
pronounced by the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem was 
an infpired decifion, the reafon which he affigns for allow- 
ing uninfpired members to affift at this confultation is 
very extraordinary. " It may appear ftrange," fays he, 
" that if a revelation was to be given refpefting this 
Hh2 



364 Appendix II. 

t( matter, the whole church mould be joined in the 
6( decree of the apoftles, or that they and their elders, 
t: as well as the apoftles,^o«/a / be called together to confult. 
" But by this means a great end was gained. The 
** church heard all that could be faid upon the fubjeft, 
" together with the decifion of the chofen witneiTes and 
u ambaffadors of Chrift, and thus, no doubt, would be 
M difpofed the more readily to embrace uncircumcifed 
" Gentiles as brethren in Chrift." Though this how- 
ever might be a very good reafon for allowing the 
members of the church at Jerufalem to hear the delibera- 
tions and determination of this affembly, which Mr. 
Haldane defcribes as an infpired affembly, it appears, 
in every view, difficult to conceive how it could render 
it proper to admit men who were not infpired to con- 
fult with the former upon the prefent queftion. Could 
thofe who were in this fuuation add any thing to the 
information of thofe who were guided by an immediate 
miraculous influence ? or for what purpofe could thofe 
who were aided fimply by their own fagacity be called 
together to confult, as Mr. Haldane affirms, with thofe 
who were directed by this extraordinary energy ? 

The third fubject of inquiry contained in thefe Letters, 
namely, Whether there mould be a clafs of elders who are 
only to rule, while there are others who preach as well 
as lule, is very curforily examined by Mr. Haldane. 
He denies that there mould be fuch an order, p. 230. 
and boldly aflerts that the inftitution of it " was one of 
" the fteps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man 
" of fin acquired fuch power." But, in oppofition to 
this, the reader is requefted to perufe with impartiality 
Letters IX. X. and XI. where it is endeavoured to be 
proved, that this is an office founded on reafon, prc- 
fcribed by fcripture, and diftinguifned by the approba- 
tion of the moft zealous and orthodox primitive fathers 
in the ages- immediately pofteribr to the apoftles. Let 



Remarks, &c. 



365 



him confult efpecially the teftimony produced from the 
writings which have frequently been afcribedto Ambrofe, 
p. 157. to the exiftence of this particular order of elders 
in the earlieft periods of the Chrillian church ; and to his 
declaration that it was on account of the difcontinuance 
of this order, at the time at which he lived, that the 
power of the clergy had become fo enormous : — the 
words otBucer, which are there quoted, refpe&ing the 
Bohemian churches, " who alone almoft," as he remarks, 
" .preferved in the 'world the purity of the doctrine, and 
" the vigour of the discipline of Chrift," amidft the uni- 
verfal corruption of the Romifh church, and who had 
this order among them. Let him recollect, as is there 
Hated, that it was to check thefe exceffes which were 
praclifed at that period by the Romifh clergy, that Calvin, 
at the Reformation, revived thefe elders. Let him attend 
to the fact, that Roman Catholics and Epifcopalians are 
not lefs zealous than Independents again ft this clafs of 
rulers ; that, as is remarked by the learned Dr. Owen 
(himfelf an Independent), p. 177. there is not one new 
argument advanced agaiml the paifage in 1 Tim. v. 17. 
which has frequently been urged for ruling elders — not 
one exception given in to the affixing fuch a fenfe to it, 
but what has long fmce been coined by Paplfts and Pre- 
latifts, and managed with better colours than the Inde- 
pendents of his day were able to lay on them. Let him 
reflect, we fay, upon thefe things, and then confider 
what he mull think of the fwaggering aiTertion of this 
author, that the inftitutloh of this order was one of the 
fleps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man of fin 
acquired fuch power!!! 

• Rafh, indeed, and unfounded as is this affertion, refpefl- 
ing the tendency of this order, it mult be acknowledged 
to be lefs wonderful than fome of the arguments by which 
he endeavours to (hew that this order is not appointed in 
fcripture. The minifters,he favs, are called byPrefbvterians 
Hh 3 



3 66 



Appendix II. 



the Clergy, or, as the Greek word from which it comes lite- 
rally fignifies, the men who are the peculiar inheritance of 
God, and the elders who rule but do not pi each, Lay-elders, 
or the Laity. He next attempts to fhew that the firft of 
thefe names ought not to be appropriated to minifters, 
and that the people are as really a part of the clergy, or 
of the inheritance of the Lord, as the paftors ; and 
having produced, in fupport of this, fix very humorous 
pages from Dr. Campbell's Lectures, imagines that he 
has proved to the fatisfaction of all, that there ought 
to be no fuch thing as the office of lay-elders, who rule 
and do not preach. But what connection this conclufion 
has with thefe premifes, I profefs myfelf completely un- 
able to difcover. Becaufe fome have applied to the elders 
who both teach and rule, and thofe who only rule, the 
names Clergy and Lay-elders, therefore there can be no 
fuch office as that of elders who rule but do not preach !! 
How aftonifhing! The man who can difcern how the 
one of thefe fentiments follows from the other, pofTeffes 
indeed no common portion of ingenuity and fagacity. 
Might it not as well be concluded, from the application of 
improper names to thefe elders, that there mould not be 
an order of elders in the church who are to preach and 
rule, as to infer, merely from the mifapplication of thefe 
names to them (even granting it to be a mifapplication), 
that there mould not be a clafs of elders who are only to 
rule ? Does Mr. Haidane, moreover, need to be inform- 
ed, that even Calvin himfelf, the great reviver and cham- 
pion for Prefbytery, at the era of the Reformation, denies 
the diftin&ion which he here reprobates, and yet ftrongly 
and exprefsly contends for thefe elders ? Is he not fen- 
fible alfo, if he is willing to acknowledge it, that fuch 
Prefbyterians as retain the terms Clergy and Lay-elders 
do not ufe them in the fenfe in which he reprefents them 
as employed by the Romifh church ? Will he venture 
to come forward, and, as an honeft man, declare, whether 



Remarks, Sec. 367 

it is an effential principle of Prefbytery to require all who 
are connected with it to believe, as he would infinuate, 
p. 231. by his quotation from Dr. Campbell, that the 
miniflers, who preach as well as rule, are called Clergy, 
" as being in this prefent world God's peculium y or fpe- 
" cial inheritance ?" — or that the members of its con- 
gregations at* large, and elders who only rule in parti- 
cular, are denominated Laymen, in common writings 
and converfation, from a Greek word which fignifies 
a ftone, becaufe they refemble a (lone (fee p. 234.) 
in ignorance and infenfibility ? Do they adopt the 
opinion of Altensfaig in his Lexicon, which he cites 
with very great approbation from Dr. Campbell, when 
reafoning againft them ? " A clergyman fignifies a 
" learned man, fcientific, fkilful, full of knowledge, 
" accomplifhed, and intelligent. A layman, on the con- 
€t trary, fignifies an unlearned man, unfkilful, filly, and 
" Jlony ?" And is every clergyman in their opinion, as 
we are told that he was in his, as quoted by Mr. Haldane, 
" in fo far as he is a clergyman, re fpe dlable ; and every 
" layman, fo far as he is fuch, deipicable I" Or do they 
adopt the fentiments of Cardinal Bona, as copied from 
Dr. Campbell, p. 235. in relation to the care that mould 
be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed 
to do themfehes harm by Jludylng the prof ounder parts of fcrip- 
ture, which their ftupidity, as he exprelTes it, is utterly 
incapable of comprehending ? " Concerning laymen," 
fays he, " in whom pride the mother of blindnefs reigns, 
u fo far as refpects thofe things which regard faith and 
" morals. For when like idiots, they prefume to explain 
" the faered writings, which are the moll profound of 
" all writings ; and again, when they happen to pofTefs 
" any external accomplifhments, they defpife all others, 
" and being thus doubly blinded by pride, they defervedly 
" fall into that worn; error through which they are in- 
" fatuated by God, fo that they know not how to dif- 



3 68 



Appendix II. 



" cern what is good and what is evil. Wherefore, let 
u not laymen read all the books of the facred fcripture." 
Will Mr. Haldane maintain that fuch is the acceptation 
in which the terms under review are underflood by Pref- 
byterians ; or that fuch are the views entertained by the 
Church of Scotland of the Clergy and Lay-elders, as they 
are called by fome, or of the Laity in general ? Is not 
all that is meant when her minifters or members fpeak of 
her clergy, perfons who are ordained to teach and rule ; 
and when they talk of lay-elders, thofe of the people who 
are elders in the church, and yet are only to rule and 
not to preach ? And upon what principle of common 
fenfe can it be made to appear, that becaufe neither the 
terms Clergy nor Elders are to be found in fcripture, there 
cannot be two feparate clafTes of office-bearers, one who 
preach as well as rule, >and another who rule but do not 
preach ? 

It is granted by Mr. Haldane, p. 237. that there 
may be a divernty of gifts among elders, and that it is 
not improper for each of them peculiarly to apply his 
mind to, and to be chiefly engaged in that particular 
part of duty for which he is bed qualified. " One man 
" may be beft qualified for labouring in public ; another 
" may be his fuperior in converfation, and may more 
" eminently promote the edification of the church by 
" more private admonition and inft ruction." The truth 
of this remark be illuitrates by two inilances, taken from 
characters in political life. " Dr. Franklin, " fays he, 
" fo juflly celebrated for his wifdom and genius, ftldom 
M or never made a fpeech in Congrefs ; yet fuch was 
" the eftimation of his judgment and penetration, that his 
" opinion, delivered in a Tnort fentence or two, had £ene- 
" rally the greatefl weight. Mr. Addifon had no talents 
" for public fpeaking, and yet he was fecretary of ftate. 

Had thefe men been members of a church, and ex- 
" celled as much in the knowledge of divine things as 



Remarks, &c. 369 

" they did in other things, would they not have been 
" eminently qualified for overfeeing or feeding the flock 
" of God ?" Now, if, as was before proved, there is 
to be a diverfity of offices in the church of Chrift corre- 
fponding to the diverfified gifts of the members, and if 
there be fome members, though admirably fitted for ruling, 
as little qualified for being preachers as Dr. Franklin 
or Mr. Addifon were for being public fpeakers, is it not 
evident, even upon his own principles, that there mould 
be fome elders who are only to rule and not to preach in 
the church of God ? 

In confirmation of his remarks upon the neceffity of a 
diverfity of ecclefiailical offices correfponding to the 
diverfified gifts of the members, he refers us to 1 Tim. 
v. 17. " Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy 
" of double honour, efpecially they who labour in the 
" word and doctrine. ,That by double honour," fays he, 
" here is meant larger temporal fupport, is evident not 
" only from the frequent ufe of the word rtpvi in this 
" fenfe, but from the reafon of the precept ; for, adds 
" the apoftle, Thou (halt not muzzle the ox that tread- 
" eth out the corn ; and the labourer is worthy of his 
" reward ; ver. 18. This fupport is to be bellowed both 
u on thofe who rule, and on thofe who preach, although 
u more abundantly on the former. 

" Some," fays he, " in order to avoid a diftindlion 
" between preaching and ruling elders, confider the pre- 
" cept to refpedt thofe elders who are laborious in the 
M difcharge of their duty ; but this implies the abftirdity 
" of the church being called to fuppbrt in a liberal man- 
" ner elders who were not laborious. The meaning of 
u the precept feems obvious, that the elders who faith- 
" fully difcharge their duty mould be liberally provided 
" for, but that this was efpecially their duty towards 
11 thofe who labour in the word and doctrine. Their 
u gifts were fuperior, they were calculated for more ex- 



37° 



Appendix II. 



" tenfive ufefulnefs, they would require to devote more 
" of their time to ftudy and reading and preaching the 
" g°fp e W not merely in the church, but to unbelievers 
u around them, they flood in need of more fupport from 
M their brethren." 

After conceding however fo much in favour of that 
very office which he had before alTerted to be one of the 
fteps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man of fin 
acquired fuch power, he advances an observation not lefs 
contradictory to the preceding fentiments than totally 
inconfiftent with the text upon which it is made. u If 
" any," fays he, " from this text ( i. Tim. v. 17.), infer 
" that the elders who rule well are not entitled to preach, 
" they muft alfo maintain that the elders who preach are 
<c not entitled to rule ; a reftriction which has never been, 
M and is not likely to be advanced." But are we not 
Inftructed in this very paiTage, that the elders who labour 
in word and doctrine muft alfo rule well, before they can 
be entitled, in preference to others, to the double honour 
here mentioned ? And is it not as exprefsly affirmed (as 
obferved, Letter XI.) that other elders, when they merely 
rule well, and do not labour in the word and doBrine, are 
alfo entitled to double honour ? Does it not follow of 
courfe, fince none can receive this liberal fupport who do 
not perform the whole of their duty, that there muft be a clafs 
of elders who fulfil all the duties which they are called to 
perform when they merely rule well, and at the fame time 
a diftinct clafs who are not only to rule, but to be employed 
in preaching the word and doctrine, and who muft faith- 
fully difcharge both parts of their function before they can 
more efpecially be entitled from it to liberal maintenance ? 
If, as the moft learned of Independents however admits 
(Letter XI. p. 1 7 7- ), "a rational man, who is unpre- 
* 6 judiced, and never heard of the controverfy about ruling 
" elders, upon reading this text, can hardly avoid an 
" apprehenfion that there are two forts of elders, fome 



Remarks, &c. 371 

ie who labour in the word and do&rine and rule well, and 
" fome who rule well, but do not fo labour and if, as 
even a great Epifcopalian maintains, p. 178. any man 
who would draw an oppofite conclufion from thefe words 
would /peak twnfenfe ; how can Mr. Haldane with any 
juftice affert, " that if any, from this text, infer that the 
" elders who rule well are not entitled to preach, they 
" muft alfo maintain, that the elders who preach are not 
" entitled to rule * ?" 

With regard to the fourth of the principles difcuffed 
in thefe Letters, or the fubje&ion of the rulers of a par- 
ticular congregation to the authoritative review of the 
rulers and office-bearers of a number of congregations 
met as a Prefbytery, or Synod, or Affembly, Mr. Haldane 
is guilty of no lefs mifreprefentation than on fome of the 
preceding articles. " From the view we have taken," fays 
he, p. 1 57. " of the conftitution of the apoftolic churches, 
u it appears, that although embarked in the fame caufe, 
" they muft have been completely independent of each 
" other. Jefus has not even permitted an individual to 
" transfer to a church the fubje&ion which is only due 
" to himfelf. Far lefs can we fuppofe, that he has given 
" one church, or churches, dominion over others." 
And again, " Can any thing be found in fcripture to 
u countenance the idea of the dependence of congrega- 
" tions of faints upon one another ? In vain do we look 
" for it." It is a well known fact however, as was 
before noticed, that Prefbyterians claim for a Prefbytery 
or Synod no more dominion over a particular congrega- 

* " Some good people who met in the North," fays Mr. Rowland 
Hill, p. 15 z. " rigid for Independency, thought they had proved 
4t that all elders were preachers, by afking if all preachers were 
" not elders ; the firft proportion being granted, it was fuppofed 
" the other would follow in courfe. It is juft as readily granted, 
" that all kings are men, but it is not as readily proved therefrom, 
" that alt men are kings.'* 



372 



Appendix IL 



tlon than an Independent church uniformly claims over 
each of its members, and that the former require none 
of their congregations to be more dependent upon them 
than an Independent church requires each of its members 
to be dependent upon itr 

To prove that every particular congregation ought not 
to be independent of the review and controul of the 
minifters and elders of a number of congregations, we 
before referred (Letters XV. and XVI.) to what is 
faid in fcripture of the church at Jerufalem, This church 
we then endeavoured to mew, from the number of thofe 
who are reprefented as having been added to it at different 
times, and who ftatedly refided there — from the number 
alfo of the minifters who laboured in it for many years, 
and from the variety of languages which were requifite 
for its edification, mud have confifted of feveral congrega- 
tions, which, though adminiftered by their feparate and 
particular rulers, were fuhject alfo to one common 
government. In oppofition to this, Mr. Haldane remarks, 
p. 153. " We are but imperfectly acquainted with the 
" ftate of things at Jerufalem. The temple-worfhip was 
" completely different from any thing among us. Vaft 
" crowds of Jews came up to the great feaft from every 
<c part of Judea and the adjacent countries. We have 
" no reafon to fuppofe that the thoufands who believed 
w were all fixed inhabitants at Jerufalem." And again, 
p. 154. " We learn from Jofephus, that the multitude 
" who afiembled in the temple was immenfe." He fays 
(Jewifh War, book vi. chap, ix.), that u Ceilius, under 
" Nero, directed the high-priefls to take the number of 
" the inhabitants of Jerufalem at the time of the paffover. 
" They found the facrifices to be 256,500, which, allow- 
" ing ten perfons to each victim (the ordinary number), 
4t amounts to 2,565,000 perfons, pure according to the 
6( rites of the law, deducting thofe who by uncleanneffes 



Remarks, &c. 



373 



« could not partake at this feafl*. He elfewhere efti- 
" mates the number of thofe who affembled at the feaft 
§1 of the paffover (book ii. chap, xiv.) at 3,000,000, a 
" number to which the ufual refident inhabitants bore 
" no proportion." But allowing that fome of thefe 
converts were not ftated inhabitants of Jerufalem, it has 
already been {hewn that the number of thofe who are 
reprefented as having their ufual refidence there, was far 
too great for a fingle congregation. And, indeed, if Jeru- 
falem, as he allows, was fo large as to accommodate three 
millions at the time of the paffover, the number of its 
fixed inhabitants mud have been very great. Wheia 
therefore we confider the fuccefs of the gofpel, in that 
favoured period, in other places — the number of the mi- 
ni Iters conftantly engaged in this important work in the 
city of Jerufalem, and yet that they could not find time 
to ferve the poor — and that they were thus employed in 
this city for almofl thirty years, is it poffible to believe 
that no more were converted by all of them in that fpace, 
than could conveniently meet for receiving the facrament, 
and for other religious purpofes, in one congregation ? 
Was this the time when, agreeably to the intimations of 
ancient prophecy (Pfal. ex.), the fpiritual offspring of 
Chrifl: were to furpafs in number the drops of dew from 
the/ womb of the morning ? and was the proportion of 
thefe, as Independents affirm, that were to be found 
among the fixed inhabitants of Jerufalem, no more, in a 
fpace of almofl: thirty years, than one congregation ? If 
fo, indeed, the fuccefs of probably a hundred minifters 
in Jerufalem mufl have been extremely fmal! ; and it feems 
difficult to account for this very extraordinary fad, that 

* Bafnage fays, in his Hiilory of the Jews, book i. chap. ix. that 
fometimes two millions and feven hundred thoufand perfbns 
convened. 

i ; 



374 Appendix II. 

while the reft of the world needed fo much the means of 
falvation, fo many minifters mould have remained in that 
city for fo long a period though their labours were fo in- 
effectual, while other preachers, in many other places, 
were made in a much more diftinguifhed degree to 
triumph in Chrift. On the whole, as was before hinted, 
p. 258. does not this affertion of Independents ftrengthen 
the hands of infidels, and weaken, if not annihilate, 
one of the grandeft and mofl powerful arguments for 
Chriflianity — that which is drawn from its aftonifhing 
fuccefs in the early ages ? If the number of followers 
which, during thirty years, it gained even in Jerufalem, 
where our Saviour lived, and died, and rofe again— 
where fo many apoftles, and prophets, and evangelifts, 
and pallors miniftered — where fo many miracles were 
performed, and fo many Jews refided — was fo imall, how 
much fmaller mud have been their number in other places 
which were lefs highly diftinguifhed ? In every point of 
view then, we feem bound to acknowledge that the num- 
ber of converts, among the ftated inhabitants of Jeru- 
falem, muft have been much greater than could meet 
merely in a fingle congregation. And fmce the whole 
of thefe different congregations in Jerufalem, as was 
before fpecified, are reprefented as conftituting one 
church, fubjeft to the fame common and general govern- 
ment, it certainly prefents a very powerful argument for 
fubjefting a number of feparate congregations, in the 
prefent day, to a fimilar government, while they are 
fubordinate alfo to their own particular rulers*. 

* It was before remarked, that even allowing that the temple 
could have contained the whole of the Chriftians at Jerufalem, it 
does not appear that the apoftles were permitted to preach in it 
<il pleafure, after they are faid to have been beaten for this : 

cts v. But even admitting, as is dated, Acts v. 42. that they 
mte permitted frequently after this, like any other Jews who 



Remarks, &<*. 



375 



As to the paffages which he produces, p. 156. 157. 
to {hew that the whole of the believers in Jerufalem 
were accuftomed to meet for religious purpofes in one 
aifembly, they have been confidered in the preceding 
Letters. 

As has already been remarked, the fifteenth chapter of 
the book of A&s has often been urged as an argument for 
Preibyterian courts of review. But without endeavouring 
to overthrow the reafoning on which this inference is 
founded, Mr. Haldane does not hefitate very roundly to 
aflert, p. 159. that " the pafTage is wholly inapplicable 
" to the purpofe." And having proved by this offert'ion 
that it is thus inapplicable, he details at length the theory 
of Independents, which has before been examined in our 
review of this chapter. 

In the account, too, which Mr, Haldane gives of this 
reference, there are many affirmations inconfifter 1 *: with 
the fitnple narrative contained in this paiTage. He main- 
tains, for initance, that the decifion delivered was an in- 
fpired decifion; and one reafon, he tells us, p. 160. why the 
church at Antioch fubmitted the controverfy to the deci- 
fion of the affembly which met at Jerufalem was, that " the 
" apollles were fiill there, who were the e'fcofen witneffes of 
" the death and refurreclion of Chrift, Acts x. 41. to 
" whom in a particular manner, the promife of the Spirit 
" was given, to guide them into all truth, John xvi. 13." 
But was not the reference made, not only to the apoftles, 
but to the elders at Jerufalem? Acls xv. 2. Were not. 

were men of learmng, to addrefs the people from any paflage of 
the Old Teftament that was read in their hearing, and even 
granting that in thefe addrefles, as is faid in the text here cited, 
they took an opportunity to teach and preach to them Jefus, it is 
not credible that they would be allowed to meet there with the 
perfons who compofed their church alone, and deliberate in fecret, 
like our prefent Independents, upon matters of government. 
I i 2 



37^ Appendix II. 



the latter admitted to join in the confutation : Are they 
not, as well as the apofties, reprefented in the decree, as 
laying neceffary burdens upon the Chriftians at Antioch ? 
ver. 28. Yet unqueftionably they were not infpired ; 
and if fo, muft not the apofties alfo, in the prefent matter, 
have acted as uninfpired ? for, as has already been proved, 
the elders could neither have been admitted to confult 
nor determine, had the apofties been guided by a 
miraculous influence : all they could have done, would 
have been fimply to fubmit to the explicit fupernatural 
decifion of the Spirit fpeaking by the apofties. 

He fays, that the apofties, and elders, and the churchy 
p. 161. " came together to confider the queftion of the 
u necefiiiy of circumcifion to falvation." But, in oppofi- 
tion to this, we are informed, Acts xv. 6. that it was 
only " the apofties and elders who came together to 
" CGMfmcr of the matter/' as it is to them alone, ver. 2. 
that it is reprefented as having been fubmitted. Befides, 
if an infpired decifion was to be pronounced by the 
apofties alone, why was it requinte that the elders and 
church mould come together to confider this point ? He 
afferts, that the difputing mentioned, ver. 7. did not 
take place amoi.nj the apofties. But would not any one 
who looks at the 6th verfe, and reflects upon the perfons 
who are there defcribed as coming together, imagine 
that it was among the fame perfons that the difputing 
fpoken of, ver. 7. enfued ? And to affirm that it could 
not be among the apofties, M becaufe, in ordering the 
" affairs of the church, they were under the infallible 
" direction of the Spirit, and never differed in their 
" doctrine, " is to take for granted the very thing 
to be proved. Might they not differ 'for a time in 
their difcuftiGns, to afcertain His mind upon this fubject* 
as Paul and Peter, though apofties, differed at another 
time, upon another point ? Gal. ii» As Mr. Haldaue 



Remarks, &c. 



377 



moreover admits, p. 162. that the expreflion, it feemed 
good to the Holy Ghoft, " does not appear to refer,' 5 as 
Mr. Innes contends, " to the Spirit, as guiding the 
" apoftles, but to the teftimony quoted by James from 
H the word of God, concerning the Gentiles being 
iS received into the church," it is difficult to conceive 
on what ground he can believe that the decifion delivered 
by this affembly was infpired. To maintain that it was 
fo, becaufe " it is inferted as a part of that fcripture 
" which cannot be broken," is to advance an opinion 
which, unlefs it can be proved that the apoftles and elders 
a&ed in this inftance under a miraculous influence, is 
certainly untenable. Upon the fame principle might it 
not be proved, that as the letter of Claudius Lyfias, the 
Roman captain ( A&s xxiii. 26. — -30. ), is inferred in fcrip- 
ture, he, too, muft have been infpired I Though " cir- 
'* cumcifion, in fhort, was a folemn ordinance of God, 
H and though it was therefore proper that it, as well as 
the law of Mofes, fhould thus publicly be declared to 
" be no longer neceffary for the acceptable worlhippers of 
u Jehovah," yet it appears to be more than we can 
venture with fafety to affirm, that this affembly, while 
ihey quoted fcripture, and adduced miracles, in confir- 
mation of their opinion, needed to be guided by a 
fupernatural influence in making this declaration. This 
point can be determined only by fcripture, and fcripture 
fays nothing to lead us to adopt the views of Mr. Haldane. 
Farther, when it is recorded that the apoftles and elders, 
\fhen confulted upon this matter, decided that circumci- 
fion was no longer neceffary, and adduced fcripture, and 
appealed to miracles, in fupport of their determination, 
and when we fee fimilar fentiments advanced refpecling 
the law of Mofes in general, in other pafTages, no room 
is left for difference of opinion upon the prefent fub- 
jec"t in future ages. 

H 3 



378 



Appendix IL 



Is it faid with Mr. Haldane, p. 164. that It cannog 
be demonftrated that the apoftles a&ed in their uninfpired 
capacity becaufe elders were joined with them, for 
Timothy and Softhenes are joined with Paul in the falu- 
tations of his Epiftles, and yet, in writing them, he acted 
as infpired i This objection, as ftated by Mr. Glafs, had 
been confidered before ; and the reader is referred to the 
Letters which relate to this very interefting chapter for 
a reply to this quibble. 

Again, we are told by Mr. Haldane, p. 163. that 
" this council, as fome call it, would rather authorize 
" appeals to a particular church, an argument which has 
" not efcaped the Church of Rome." - It is anfwered, 
that we have repeatedly declared that the apoftles and 
elders at Jerufalem were referred to by the church at 
Antioch, not as minifters of the church of Jerufalem, 
for neither the church of Jerufalem, nor any other in- 
dividual church, was entitled to fuch power over the 
church at Antioch. They were viewed fimply as mini- 
fters of Chrift in general, and conftituted a court of 
ecclefiaftical office-bearers different from that which met 
at Antioch, and to whofe authoritative review the latter 
was fubordinate. But if they were not referred to as 
the minifters of Jerufalem, but fimply as minifters of 
the church in general, and if the church at Jerufalem 
was not confidered in it as having any authoritative 
fuperintendence as an individual fociety over the church 
at Antioch, the objection of Mr. Haldane is completely 
irrelevant. To tell us, moreover, that " this argument 
" has not efcaped the Church of Rome, and that Eckius, 
" the famous adverfary of Luther, ufed the very fame 
" weapons againft that reformer which Prefbyterians 
" employ againft congregational government," is to tell 
us nothing to the point. It amounts merely to this, 
that arguments which have been urged from this paffage 
for Prefbytery, have been urged alfo, though upon a 



Remarks, Sec, 



379 



different ground than is dated in thefe Letters, for the 
Roman Catholic fyftem. But it will never follow, from 
their being advanced, however inconclufively, for the 
latter, that they may not be conclufive for the for- 
mer. Many of the rational arguments, for inftance, in 
favour of Independency, adduced by our author, agree in 
fubjlance with the arguments adduced by the well known 
Thomas Paine, and other levelling demagogues,, for 
the rights of the people in political democracy. But 
would Mr. Haldane allow that they were not conclufive 
for Independency, becaufe they had been urged by 
Paine for political democracy ? Many arguments, too, 
which have been brought forward with propriety and 
fuccefs for a wife, fuperintending, particular Providence, 
have been employed to eftablifh that all things were fub- 
ject to a blind fatality. But would any man allow, that 
becaufe they had not efcaped the advocates for the latter, 
they were nots conclufive for the former ? And many 
arguments which have been employed by the apoftle 
Paul, and other believers in the doctrine of juftification 
without the works of the law, have been ufedby Antino- 
mians for the purpofes of licentioufnefs', to mew that 
men may live as they pleafe. But would Mr. Haldane 
admit, that becaufe the very fame arguments had been 
adduced by Antinomians in fupport of their fcheme 
which had been ufed by Paul in demonftration of the 
doctrine of juftification by grace, they were not valid 
for the latter ? If he would refufe however to grant this 
conclufion in thefe other cafes, ought he not equally to 
reject it in the one before us, and allow, that even though 
the argument which has been deduced by Prefbyterians 
and Roman Catholics from this pafTage, for their refpec- 
tive fyftems, had been the fame (and the contrary has 
been proved), it might be inconclufive for the latter, 
while conclufive for the former ? 



3»o 



Appendix II. 



In enumerating the diftinguiming excellencies of Inde- 
pendency, Mr. Haidane mentions, as peculiar to it, cir- 
cumftances which ar£ common to it with Prefbyteriare 
government. He fays, for example, p. 396. " that an 
" Independent church may exift equally under any form 
u of civil government." But cannot Prefbyterian 
churches exift equally under all forms of civil government ? 
If the favourite principle of Mr. Haidane be adopted, 
that the civil government in any country, of whatever 
form, is not to interfere with the church, may not the 
church exift with equal eafe under any government? 
whether it be Independent or Prefoyterian ? And even 
granting that it is to interfere like the Britifh Govern- 
ment, to fecure a comfortable maintenance to the clergy, 
as long as they do their duty, might not this be done 
under any form of political adminiftration to Prefbyterian 
churches, whether democratic, ariftocratic, monarchical, 
or mixed ? It cannot therefore be allowed to be one of 
the diftinguifhing excellencies of Independency, that it can 
exift equally under any form of civil government, fince 
that is no more peculiar to it than to Prefbytery, Epifco- 
pacy, or any other form of eccleliaftical adminiftration. 

" It in no fhape," fays he, " interferes with any form 
w of civil government, nor can, fo far as it acts upon 
46 proper principles, be juftly regarded as an object of 
** jealoufy to the ftate." And then he adds in a Note$ 
that (t churches independent of each other, and acknow- 
* { ledging no head upon earth, are certainly far lefs for- 
t( midable to civil government, than a great body com- 
u prehending thoufands, it may be, in all different parts 
H of the country, fubject to an individual or to a repre- 
" fentative body. The former, were they hoftiie to 
** government, muft alter their conflitution before they 
w could attempt any thing againft the ftate." But does 
not Prefbytery alfo no lefs refrain from interfering with 



Remarks, Sec. 



38i 



civil government, and, fo far as it acts upon proper prin- 
ciples, is it not plain that it can no more juftly be 
regarded as an object of jealoufy to the ftate ? Befides, 
when we confider the uniform fecrecy which diilinguimes 
all the meetings of Independents for matters of govern- 
ment, and the opennefs and publicity of the meetings of 
Prefbyterians, and that the power which is given by 
Independency to the people in the church is fimilar to 
what is granted to them by democracy in the (late, and 
how ready they may be to transfer this fpirit from the 
one to the other, is it not obvious that if any form of 
eccleirafcical government be formidable to the flate, it 
rnuft be that of [ndependency, and that Preibytery, from 
its beneficial confequences in this refpect, mufl be entitled 
to the preference ? 

M It is evident," fays Mr Haldane, " that no other 
M kind of churches than what are called Independent , can 
" pohTbly be formed in many fituations. Such an one 
" is practicable in aS circumftances where there are any 
" believers. This affords no flight argument in favour 
" of this mode of church-order. " It affords however no 
ftronger argument for this mode of church-order, than it 
would prefent for breaking down the political world into 
as many independent civil governments as there were 
towns or villages upon the face of the earth. And, in 
fupport of this, it might be contended with equal plausi- 
bility, u that it is evident that no other kind of political 
" governments but thofe of towns or villages can poflibly 
" be formed in many fituations. But fuch an one is 
" practicable in all circumftances where there are any 
" inhabitants." Nay, it might even be proved upon this 
mode of arguing, that as in many fituations, no more than 
a family can be found in a place, the primitive mode of 
political government by families is better than any other* 
zud that there fliould be no fuperior adrxiniftration, bu£ 



3 82 



Appendix IL 



as many diftinct political governments as there are families 
in the world. But if this reafoning would be confidered 
as completely inconclulive when applied to civil, muft it 
not be equally inconclulive when applied by Mr. Haldane 
to ecclefiafiical government ? May not every thing, 
moreover, in a church of Chrift, in every fituation, be 
adminiftered by the office-bearers, in oppofition to the 
Independent plan, without foliciting the judgment of the 
members ; and as loon as a fufficient number of churches 
is formed near them, or, even though at a diftance, in 
connection with them, may not a court of review be 
eftablimed amongfl them ? Have not tingle congrega- 
tions of Seceders in America, for example, been fubject 
to the review of a Prefbytery or Synod in Britain, and 
enjoyed, in addition to that congregational government 
which they had in themfelves, the fuperadded advantage 
of their fuperintendence — a benefit which cannot be 
claimed by Independents ? 

" It may be alleged," fays Mr. Haldane, p. 168. 
" that if a church has not feme body of men to coritroul 
M it, they will be apt to act improperly and partially. 
" All men are liable to err, and every church needs the 
i( conftant care of the great Shepherd. But this care 
u he ever exercifes. He has promifed to be in the midft 
" of them when met in his name. If we view a church 
" merely like other focieties, they may be confidered to 
" be equally prone to err, and we may imagine it might 
" be an advantage to have unprejudiced perfons to appeal 
" to ; but as God promifed to Ifrael of old a fpecial 
" fuperintendence, fo has Jefus to his churches. It was 
" never intended that they mould go on without it, and 
" this is calculated to keep up a fpirit of dependence or> 
" himfelf, without which no church can profper." But 
has not Jefus promifed to Chriftians individually, as well 
as ta churches, a fpecial fuperintendence ? Do not they 



Remarks, &c. 



383 



err notwithlianding this ? and do not Independents them- 
felves grant to their congregations a power of controul, 
to correct thefe errors ? But if Independents themfelves 
find it neceftary to veil a power of controul over parti- 
cular Chriftians in each of their congregations, notwith- 
ftanding the fuperintendence which Jefus has promifed 
to thefe Chriftians individually, may not a fimilar power 
of controul be requilite over thefe congregations if they 
err, notwithftanding the fuperintendence which Jefus 
has promifed to exercife over them? And if it is not 
inconfiftent with that fpirit of dependence on the blefTed 
Jefus which individual Chriftians are called to manifeft, 
that they fhould be fubjecl: to the authoritative review of 
a congregation, how can it be incompatible with the 
exercife of a fimilar dependence upon him by a congre- 
gation, that they fhould be fubjecl: to the review of a 
higher court ? 

If ordination, in fhort, confifts, as Mr. Haldane con- 
tends, only in an appointment of a minifter to a particular 
congregation, and if, as foon as he ceafes to be the paftor 
of that congregation, he ceafes to be a minifter, on what 
principle can he be juftified in exercifing his office beyond 
that congregation ? Why is he admitted, among Inde- 
pendents themfelves, to join in ordaining the minifter 
of a feparate and diftinft congregation ? or why is he 
allowed to difpenfe the facrament of the Lord's fupper 
in a congregation where he is not paftor ? Will not 
.every reafon which can be urged for his being a minifter 
to a particular church only, and for his ceafing to be a 
miniiter as foon as he ceafes to be the paftor of that 
fociety, prove alfo, that it muft be unlawful for him to 
exercife his function beyond that individual church ? 
In fine, " if confeffions of faith, of human compofition," 
as Mr. Haldane maintains, p. 413. " though they pro- 
6i mote an appearance of unity, do not produce the 



334 



Appendix IL 



" reality — and if they tend to di (courage the people 
€i from fearehing the fcriptures, by inducing a belief 
u that they are too difficult for the unlearned, and that 
" their fummaries contain whatever is valuable in 
* c them," why has Mr. Innes publifhed lately one of 
thefe fummaries for the benefit of young people, to prepare 
them for admiffion to the facrament of the fupper? 
Does Mr. Haldane here intend alfo to reprobate the 
fummary which has been publifhed by his brother? ov 
rather, will he acknowledge as a brother, a man who has 
lately written a book, the tendency of which, in his 
opinion, is to difcourage the people from reading the 
fcriptures ? 



THE END, 



Printed by H. Ingli s. 



c 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 578 302 7 • 



